HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/12/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 5, 2011
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. EDA Meeting Minutes November 21, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Request by the EDA for the City Council to Call a Public Hearing to Consider Establishment
of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution requesting the City Council to call
for a public hearing relative to the proposed Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an economic development district).
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. AWWA George Warren Fuller Award to Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2011
3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of November 28, 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.)
Meeting of December 5, 2011
City Council Agenda
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing - Off-Sale Liquor License – Tina, Inc.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an off-sale
intoxicating liquor license to Tina, Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor located at 6316
Minnetonka Boulevard with the license term through March 1, 2012.
6b. 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Recommended Action: Information will be presented pertaining to the 2012 property tax
supported budgets, 2012 General Property Tax Levy and other general tax information.
After which, the Mayor is to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close the public
hearing. There is no other formal action required at this meeting.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Major Amendment
to the PUD for Park Village Center.
8b. Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map
to change the zoning of 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard from Neighborhood
Commercial (C-1) to General Commercial (C-2), and set the second reading for
December 19, 2011.
• Motion to Adopt Resolutions approving a Conditional Use Permit for a motor
vehicle service use with a carwash and a Variance to the distance requirement
between a carwash and an adjacent residential property.
8c. Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the following three actions which will allow for the implementation
of the housing improvement area project:
• Motion to Adopt Second Reading of an ordinance to establish the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and
authorize publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution to impose fees.
• Motion to Authorize execution of Contract for Private Development and any other
related documents, by the Mayor and City Manager, between the City and
Greensboro Condominium Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the
ordinance and resolution.
8d. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of City Code – Rental Housing Licensing
Recommended Action: Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amendment
to Chapter 8 of the City Code clarifying the administrative appeal process for rental
housing licensing and set second reading for December 19, 2011.
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 December 5, 2011
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Southwest Hennepin Drug Task
Force Agreement on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park.
4b. Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on January 17th, 2012
relative to the proposed Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District)
4c. Approve extending the Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health Mutual Aid
Agreement for one year, expiring December 31, 2012.
4d. Approve entering into a service agreement with the Hennepin County Department of
Corrections for continuing to use their crews from the Sentencing to Service Program
(STS Program)
4e. Authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2012 Boulevard Tree
Pruning Contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000
4f. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$9,009.44 for the Park Center Boulevard Project, Contract No. 99-11
4g. Approve Resolution authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance renewal for
December 1, 2011 – November 30, 2012
4h. Authorize the execution of an encroachment agreement for a fence at 3300 Idaho Avenue
South
4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4133 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0050
4j. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0204
4k. Approval of Filing of 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: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Jeff Jacobs.
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 November 7, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
No action was taken on this item.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Limited
Partnership
EDA Resolution No. 11-16
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that the proposed amendment to the
Redevelopment Contract corrects the legal description related to the West End project
and is necessary for completion of the ownership transfer of the 1600 Tower and
MoneyGram office buildings to the Blackstone Group.
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2011
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to approve
EDA Resolution No. 11-16 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.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Jacobs absent).
7b. Third Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior LLC
EDA Resolution No. 11-17
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that in 2004, a Redevelopment Contract
with Aquila Senior LLC was approved for the construction of a senior cooperative
housing development on the former Talmud Torah School site. He stated that 15 of the
original 106 units remain unsold; in addition, there are currently five units up for resale.
He indicated the sale of these units is becoming an issue as more of the units turn over
and at the October 24th Study Session the EDA discussed options for making it easier for
the developer to sell the units, including dropping the asset restrictions on the original
units and dropping the income and asset restrictions on units being resold. He stated that
State TIF law requires 95% of the units to be occupied by people meeting certain income
limits and these restrictions for initial buyers need to remain in place. He advised that the
proposed changes do not change the sale price of the units and Aquila Commons will
continue to be an affordable housing option for seniors.
Mr. Wally Johnson, President of Stonebridge Development, appeared before the EDA
and stated they have reduced sale prices for the last six months by approximately
$30,000. He advised that the initial sale price of a majority of the units was
approximately $200,000-$220,000.
Commissioner Mavity stated that 40% of the units must be sold to people with a
household income not exceeding 80% of the area median income, which is approximately
$66,000 per year and half of the units must be sold to persons with a household income
not exceeding 100% of the area median income, which is approximately $82,000. She
indicated that the City had invested over $1 million in taxpayer money in Aquila
Commons and the intent was to provide affordable housing options for residents in the
community. She felt that income in the range of $66,000 to $82,000 seems to be a fairly
healthy income and asked who the target population is for the units. She noted that most
homes have lost value in the current real estate market and everyone is taking a hit.
Mr. Locke explained that the TIF money made it possible for the units to be affordable
and if the EDA had not provided any assistance, the units would have been priced too
high for anyone to purchase.
Mr. Johnson explained that the initial goal was to sell units to people who had paid off
their existing mortgages and who would then sell their home and move into Aquila
Commons. He presented a handout to the EDA with information listing incomes of
residents.
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2011
Commissioner Mavity indicated the City had put over $1 million into this project in order
to provide affordable housing options and to the extent that those income targets have
been met and exceeded, she did not understand the urgency of lifting the income
restrictions. She requested information regarding the developer’s permanent financing on
the project and if the private lenders are participating in any refinancing in order to
address the market conditions and the developer’s needs.
Mr. Johnson explained that they have not refinanced their original construction loan and
the private lenders are not willing or able to reduce the construction loan. He stated that
the TIF money was used to pay for the demolition of the Talmud Torah School, for
asbestos removal, and a number of other public purposes that went into the acquisition of
the building in order to keep the project affordable. He indicated that 70% of the units
were sold within the first year and a half and since that time, they have been doing a
number of things to sell the remaining units, including purchasing people’s homes, price
reductions, interest free notes, and maintaining the income restrictions.
Commissioner Sanger expressed several concerns regarding the proposal and agreed with
Commissioner Mavity’s concern that there does not appear to be a need to eliminate the
current income restrictions. She stated the asset limit imposed by the City requires that
none of the purchasers can have assets of more than $850,000 and felt if someone has
assets up to $850,000 and an income in the range of $60,000-$80,000, this was more than
generous in a project that is supposed to represent affordable housing. She indicated
when this project was approved, the developer advised the City that the only reason they
needed TIF money was because this was going to be a cooperative structure and they
wanted HUD funding. She stated the developer also indicated that had this project been a
condominium structure, they would not have needed the TIF money. She felt that the
terms needed to stay in place in order for this to be affordable and would not support the
recommendations. She added she did not feel it was appropriate to sell units to the adult
children of seniors and that this was contrary to the terms of the original arrangement.
Commissioner Santa agreed with some of the concerns expressed by Commissioners
Sanger and Mavity but was comfortable with supporting the proposed changes.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve EDA
Resolution No. 11-17 Approving Third Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment Between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Aquila
Senior, LLC.
President Finkelstein stated the City was aware it would take up to $2 million to remove
the asbestos from the Talmud Torah property and Council believed at the time that
another condominium development would fit in this neighborhood and meet the needs of
the community with an affordable housing project. He shared the concerns expressed by
Commissioners Sanger and Mavity but did not see how it would serve the cooperative
housing community or the City to turn this proposal down. He added that the City wants
this project to succeed and felt the project will continue to be affordable with the
proposed changes. He noted that the EDA has previously made modifications to a
number of projects in the City, including Hoigaard Village.
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2011
The motion passed 4-2 (Commissioners Mavity and Sanger opposed; Commissioner
Jacobs absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: December 5, 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 25,
2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:55:51R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,793.00BELTLINE LRT STATION PLANNINGBARR ENGINEERING CO
5,793.00
100.00HOIGAARD 2010A DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEESBOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
100.00
7,148.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
7,148.50
72.217015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
72.21
53.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
32.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
85.00
142.50HARD COAT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
237.50HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,467.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
95.00EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,942.50
687.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORECAST PUBLIC ART
687.50
5,458.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
5,458.00
162.00AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
756.00HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICES
174.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A LEGAL SERVICES
330.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
1,422.00
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
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:55:51R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -10/8/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
420.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
420.00
425.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNAIOP
425.00
224.39DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
224.39
62.92DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
62.92
Report Totals 37,868.80
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Request by the EDA for the City Council to Call a Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of
the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution requesting the City Council to call for a public hearing relative to
the proposed Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1
(an economic development district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to request that the City Council hold a public hearing on January 17, 2012 to
consider the establishment of an Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District to
facilitate Anderson-KM Builders’ proposed Oak Hill II office building?
BACKGROUND:
Newly-formed Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from the former Anderson
Builders’ location on Park Glen Rd in St. Louis Park as well as former KM Building's offices in
Minneapolis. The full-service real estate development, design management, and construction
company plans to build a new office facility and consolidate its operations there. The proposed
office site is the property owned by Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed
Oak Hill II office building would be 21,432 SF and two stories. Oak Hill II would be an
attractive brick structure designed to complement the original Oak Hill office building next door.
Anderson-KM Builders would occupy approximately half the new building (6,001 SF of office
and 4,715 SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF would be built out as office space and leased
to one or more tenants. Oak Hill II would be marketed to general office users and specialty
medical users given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
Total construction costs of the proposed building are $2.7 million or $127/SF comprised of
$100/SF for the shell and blended rate of $27/SF for tenant improvements. The Redeveloper’s
expected return on investment of less than ten (10) percent is below industry standards of ten
(10) percent to twelve (12) percent (depending on the size and risk associated with the project).
Based on its review of the proposed project, Ehlers and Associates found that Anderson-KM
Builder’s cost and revenue assumptions were reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore it
concluded that Anderson-KM Builders is unable to undertake the proposed project without
the EDA’s financial assistance.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
In order for the Redeveloper to achieve a modest return on investment, the proposed project
warrants approximately $300,000 in assistance. Oak Hill II meets the requirements of an
Economic Development TIF District (9 year TIF District) under the 2010 Minnesota Jobs Bill.
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Request Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District
This law temporarily allows local governments to create an Economic Development District for
any type of new construction provided construction commenced by July 1, 2012. If this type of
TIF district were created, the proposed project would generate a present value (principle amount)
of approximately $300,000 over the life of the district. These funds would then be used to
reimburse Anderson-KM Builders on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing
method under the City's TIF Policy.
Request for TIF Assistance
At the October 10th Study Session the EDA reviewed the preliminary TIF Application from
Anderson-KM Builders which was favorably received. As a result, staff was directed to call for
a public hearing on the proposed Economic Development TIF district and to begin drafting a
formal Redevelopment Contract with Anderson-KM Builders.
Call for Public Hearing
The TIF program is run by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city councils are
statutorily required to hold a public hearing. To start the TIF district process the EDA must
formally request the City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing. Calling for the public
hearing is the first step in the formal creation of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on January 17, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Setting a hearing date for the Oak Hill TIF II District does not, in itself, authorize or commit the
EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply enables
the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district. The EDA will
have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along with other
terms when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is presented. Such a contract is
likely to be submitted to the EDA prior to the formal approval of the TIF district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Anderson-KM Builders up to $300,000 in tax increment financing assistance so as to
enable the construction of a $4.3 million office building. It is proposed that the assistance be
provided through pay-as-you-go tax increment from the proposed Oak Hill TIF II TIF District.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Oak Hill II office project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution
TIF Schedule
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 December 5, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Request Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A MODIFICATION TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT (AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), and in connection with this program has established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Project”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047; and
WHEREAS, the Authority is proposing a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project (the “Modification”), the establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District (the “TIF District”) within the Project, and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing
Plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF District, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1799.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The Authority hereby requests that the Council call for a public hearing on January 17, 2012,
to consider the Modification, establishment of the TIF District and adoption of the TIF Plan,
and cause notice of said public hearing to be given as required by law.
2. Authority staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to
prepare the Modification, TIF Plan and related documents, and to undertake all actions
necessary to bring the Modification and TIF Plan before the Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 5, 2011
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Request Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under M.S. Section 469-176, Subd. 4c(d))
November 28, 2011 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources and uses
of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
December 5, 2011 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
December 5, 2011 City Council calls for a public hearing.
December 12, 2011 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the
property to be included in the TIF District.
NA County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days
prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF
Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Because the
City staff believes that the proposed tax increment financing district will not require
unplanned county road improvements, the TIF Plan will not be forwarded to the County
Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the County Board could
claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing
December 16, 2011 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or
before December 16, 2011]
December 19, 2011 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
January 4, 2012 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in compliance with
City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
January 5, 2012 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than
30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to the St. Louis Park
Sun Sailor on or before December 29, 2011 at sunlegals@acnpapers.com]
EDA Meeting of December 5, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Request Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under M.S. Section 469-176, Subd. 4c(d))
January 17, 2012 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
EDA adopts an Interfund Loan in connection with the Oak Hill II TIF District.
January 17, 2012 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of the
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the
Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the City on or before
January 9, 2012]
City Council adopts an Interfund Loan in connection with the Oak Hill II TIF
District.
January 18, 2012 City can issue building permits.
_________, 2012 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF District.
By June 30, 2012 Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
Before July 1, 2012 Construction of project begins.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
AWWA George Warren Fuller Award to Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor Jacobs and the City Council are asked to recognize Scott Anderson, Utility
Superintendent, on his receiving the George Warren Fuller Award given by the American Water
Works Association (AWWA). Scott was recognized at the AWWA MN Section 2011 Fall
Conference as this year’s recipient of the prestigious “George Warren Fuller” award. The
George Warren Fuller award is given to individuals in North America (Canada, the US, and
Mexico); Scott is one of 44 people in North America to receive this award.
AWWA MN Section Chair Carol Blommel Johnson and MN Section Past Chair Bert Tracy will
be in attendance at the Council meeting to present this award to Scott Anderson.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
The George Warren Fuller Award is presented annually by the American Water Works
Association to a Sections' selected member for their distinguished service to the water supply
field in commemoration of the sound engineering skill . . . the brilliant diplomatic talent . . . and
the constructive leadership which characterized his life.
George Warren Fuller was a capable engineer, equipped with a mind that never closed a channel
to new ideas. He was an inventive technician--first in the laboratory field, later in engineering
and design. He was a skilled negotiator; a public relations counsel who never called himself one,
but who by such skill persuaded reluctant city officials that they were very wise and right to
authorize sanitary improvements. He was a loyal citizen who found himself able and willing to
render service to his country during World War I. He was uncannily able to give ear to the ideas
and aspirations of younger men in the field and to inspire in them some measure of the spirit of
leadership that he possessed. He believed in the organization and assembly of technical and
professional men and devoted himself fully to the advancement of their associations and
societies to the end that they serve better through planned action and cooperation.
Notwithstanding a busy life in active practice, Fuller gave freely of his time and energy to the
advancement of his chosen profession through participation in the activities of technical
societies, through contributions to the engineering press, and through educational activities. His
record in this respect is outstanding. He was a member of the American Water Works
Association (President); the American Public Health Association (President); the Engineering
Foundation (Chair); the American Society of Civil Engineers (Vice-President); the American
Institute of Consulting Engineers; the American Society of Mechanical Engineers; the Institution
of Civil Engineers of Great Britain; the American Chemical Society; the American Society of
Bacteriologists; the Engineering Institute of Canada; the Vereines Duetscher Ingenieure; the
Association Generale des Hygienistes et Techniciens Municipaux of France; and the Franklin
Institute.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: AWWA George Warren Fuller Award to Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
This year, the committee identified and evaluated 39 possible nominees from all six districts of
the MN Section. Some of Scott’s accomplishments noted by the MN Section are:
He is a loyal citizen who has served in the United States Navy in Vietnam, the local VFW
as a Ritual Team member, and the United States Air Force as an Academy Parent
Volunteer
He has provided over 30 years of excellent service to the water industry and the City of
St. Louis Park.
He continues to a make a positive difference in the world through his activities as a
coach, mentor and volunteer
He is a long-time, active member of AWWA, on both the Section and Association levels,
serving as the Section Chair, District Trustee, Management Committee Chair,
Management Development Committee, and Water For People Committee Chair.
In addition to this Section recognition, Scott will be presented an award plaque at the Fuller
Award Society Breakfast during the 2012 American Water Works Association Annual
Conference and Exposition held next June in Dallas, Texas.
Each awardee also automatically becomes a member of the George Warren Fuller Award Society
of the American Water Works Association. No initiation fees or annual dues are required for
membership in this society. The annual meeting of the society is held at the Fuller Award
Society Breakfast at the American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition.
More information on George Warren Fuller and this award can be obtained at the AWWA
website at http://www.awwa.org/Membership/awards.cfm?ItemNumber=43004.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 14, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue
Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 28, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for November 28th.
Councilmember Mavity noted that the City’s Boards and Commissions are up for reappointment
and suggested that rather than automatically reappointing the commissioners, it might be helpful
for Council to ask the sitting commissioners to submit a brief statement confirming their desire
to be reappointed.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that the commissioners are contacted by City staff to confirm
their interest in continuing to serve.
Councilmember Santa requested a recap from staff with respect to Cavalia and stated it would be
helpful to have a report on lessons learned, what worked and what could be improved in the
event that someone else comes to the City requesting a similar type of show in the future.
Mr. Harmening stated that John Basill, the CVB President, is currently working on bringing
another show to that site.
Councilmember Sanger asked when the City expects to receive an update from Mn/DOT
regarding the finalized plans for Highway 100.
Mr. Harmening advised that Mn/DOT is currently working on the rescoped designs and the City
expects to receive Mn/DOT’s report after the first of the year.
Councilmember Sanger requested an update on the ongoing fiber optics study.
Mr. Harmening stated that a consultant has been retained and the study should be done in March
or April next year.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
2. 2012 Budget Discussion
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that the preliminary 2012 budget maintains
current service levels and holds expenditures as flat as possible. He stated that Council adopted
a preliminary property tax levy increase of 5% over the 2010 levy, or $23,830,726 versus
$22,695,928 in 2011. He noted that Council previously identified some items that it wished to
have included in the 2012 budget and these items can be supported with a 5% property tax levy
increase. He presented the first policy question for Council consideration and asked if there is
other budget information that Council would like to review.
It was the consensus of the City Council that no other budget information is needed for Council
review.
Mr. Harmening presented the second policy question for Council consideration and asked if the
Council is interested in setting aside $25,000 for a recreation study. He noted that this amount is
not currently set aside in the 2012 budget.
It was the consensus of the City Council to set aside $25,000 in the 2012 budget for a recreation
study.
Mr. Harmening presented the third policy question for Council consideration and asked if the
Council is interested in setting aside $15,000 annually for contractual tree watering services.
It was the consensus of the City Council to set aside $15,000 annually for contractual tree
watering services.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the $15,000 amount has been confirmed as an appropriate
amount and whether the tree watering will include boulevard trees or only public lands.
Ms. Deno stated that the tree watering services will cover newly planted trees.
Mr. Harmening presented the fourth policy question for Council consideration and asked if
Council desires to allocate resources to the Employee Benefit or Housing Rehabilitation Funds.
Mr. Swanson explained that the Employee Benefits Fund is used to fund tuition reimbursement,
benefits consultants, workers’ compensation expenses, COBRA processing fees, etc. He
suggested that Council consider placing $100,000 into the Employee Benefits Fund in 2012.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that her inclination was to push back a bit and for the City to
strive toward a levy that is lower than 5%. She stated that the economy is not getting any better
and some residents are not equipped to pay more.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the difference for the average homeowner between a 4.5%
levy and a 5% levy is minimal and she would rather approve a moderate increase every year and
fund what needs to be funded so that long term, the City’s funds are structurally sound.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that a moderate increase is appropriate but was not sure that all
of the items included with a 5% levy were absolute necessities.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
Councilmember Santa stated that for the last couple of years, the City’s staff training budget has
been cut to the bone and she did not want the City to be in a position where staff cannot keep up
with their professions because they are not getting enough training. She added that one of the
benefits offered to employees is the opportunity for training and growth and should be
considered part of their compensation package.
Mr. Swanson reviewed the examples of property tax levy adjustments contained in the staff
report and indicated with a 5% levy increase, a property valued at $220,000 would pay
approximately $47 more per year; with a levy increase of 4.22%, that same property would pay
approximately $41 more per year. He further explained that the City’s share of the 2012 tax
increase with a 5% levy increase versus a 4.22% levy increase results in a net difference of
approximately $7 per year.
Mr. Bultema presented Council with talking points regarding property taxes which includes
information regarding the levy, changes in the Market Value Homestead Credit program, and
where to call with questions. He stated that Truth in Taxation notices will be mailed starting on
Tuesday, November 15th.
Ms. Deno stated that the City’s Truth in Taxation hearing will be held December 5th and will
assume a 5% property tax levy. She explained that Council will then adopt its final 2012 budget
and property tax levy on December 19th.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to continue with a 5.00% property tax
levy increase from 2011 as its 2012 final property tax levy to consider.
3. Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and reviewed the developer’s plans for moving forward with
the remaining two phases of the project. He noted that a technical issue exists related to the
deadlines in the last agreement and the need to change the timeline for completion of the project.
He then introduced Mr. Frank Dunbar and Mr. Steve Dunbar representing Union Land II.
Mr. Frank Dunbar presented several drawings of the Hoigaard Village project and stated that the
74-unit Harmony Vista building and the 220-unit Camerata building have a 98% occupancy rate
and there is currently a much greater demand than supply of rental housing in this market. He
indicated the average renter’s age is mid-20s with 65% being single female renters. He stated
that demographic trends indicate a significant population in their late teens and early 20s and
over the next decade, this demographic will have a stronger housing need than senior housing.
He stated that ownership has decreased substantially and they currently see no financing
opportunities to build units for sale; as a result, they would like to build the Adagio and Medley
Row portions of the project into market rate apartments. He noted the project was to be built out
as condominiums, but requested that they be permitted to rent the units and when the market
turns around, they intend to sell the units as condominiums. He presented artist’srenderings of
the Medley Row and Adagio buildings and stated they propose to build the units toward the end
of the first quarter of 2012. He added that the previous agreement with the City includes a
requirement that the City can tell them when to change the rental units back to condominiums;
however, he cannot secure financing for the project with that caveat in place because he has to
pledge the other two buildings to get the financing. He requested that the City remove this
obligation and let the market dictate when the units are converted to condominiums.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
Mr. Locke indicated that the City’s preference has always been for owner occupied housing but
the market is not there for selling the units as condominiums. He felt it was appropriate to
remove this requirement and let the market dictate when the units are converted to
condominiums for sale.
Councilmember Mavity stated as much as the City wants to push home ownership, she did not
want to see the site sitting empty.
Mayor Jacobs agreed and indicated that one mitigating factor is the proposed light rail transit
which will keep the values up in this area.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the Adagio building is moving toward a
configuration of one bedroom or smaller units and while this may suit today’s demographics, it
may make it harder to turn the units into condominiums when the market turns. She also
expressed concern that this will be a community with single persons and not families.
Mr. Frank Dunbar stated that they have a significant number of one bedroom and one bedroom +
den units as well as two bedroom units available in the project which will expand market
opportunities.
Mayor Jacobs asked if Council was agreeable to allowing market rate apartments in the Adagio
and Medley Row components of the project. He also asked if Council was agreeable to
removing the financing obstacle contained in the agreement as it relates to the City dictating
when the units are converted to condominiums. He asked if Council was agreeable to extending
the deadline on the project.
Councilmembers Santa, Ross, and Mavity were in agreement with allowing market rate
apartments in the Adagio and Medley Row components, as well as removing the financing
obstacle contained in the agreement with the City and extending the deadline on the project.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she supported removing the financing obstacle contained in
the agreement with the City and extending the deadline on the project, but was reserving
judgment regarding the unit mixes in the Adagio and Medley Row buildings.
4. Update on Community Recreation Facilities Study Process
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and discussed the community recreation tour scheduled
on Wednesday, November 16th. He indicated that the two new Councilmembers will be
participating in the tour with Council, along with commissioners from the Park and Recreation
Advisory Commission, and representatives from the St. Louis Park School District. He stated
that a task force is proposed to be convened that would serve in a research and advisory capacity
to Council. He explained that the School District has also convened a committee to look at the
stadium site and is familiar with the process being undertaken by the City.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the community recreation tour include background
information on what each facility cost, how the cities paid for their facility, and how long it took
them to get the planning done.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2011
Councilmember Santa requested that the community recreation tour include information on how
much usage each facility gets over the course of a year as well as information on peak times.
Council discussed the results of the community recreation survey, Vision, and the interest in the
community for a community recreation facility.
Councilmember Santa pointed out it has always been clear that the City does not currently have a
funding source for a community recreation facility.
It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with the timelines and process proposed in
the staff report.
It was also the consensus of the City Council to reserve the study session agenda on January 23,
2012, for a presentation by Ellen O’Sullivan regarding trends in parks and recreation.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Santa commented that the City’s recycling program encourages residents to
reduce and the changes to Hennepin County’s residential recycling grant program talks about
tonnage for recycling. She urged the City to continue to educate residents about recycling.
Mr. Harmening stated that the County’s program appears to use a one size fits all approach and
not all cities are the same. He added that the City’s contracts with Waste Management and
Eureka expire in 2013 and Council will be discussing its refuse and recycling contracts in 2012.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the changes in the County’s recycling program might provide
an opportunity to expand the City’s recycling to businesses and this could help accomplish the
County’s goals.
Mr. Harmening noted that Council may have a closed door executive session on November 21st
to discuss litigation related to the City’s crime free housing ordinance and the EAW appeal.
The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Update on Amended and Restated Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty – The
West End Project
7. Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Program Changes
8. Adopting Plan by Neighborhood Section of Comprehensive Plan
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul
Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa.
Staff and others present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), and Attorney Paul Reuvers of Iverson Reuvers.
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session
The City Council met in closed executive session to discuss pending litigation with the
City Attorney regarding Javinsky-Wenzek v. City of St. Louis Park.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Paul Omodt (via phone).
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), and Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal).
1a. Roll Call
2. Closed Executive Session
The City Council met in closed executive session with the City Attorney to discuss
pending litigation relating to the City’s appeal of Mn/DOT’s negative declaration
regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the MN&S Freight Rail
Relocation Project.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Regular M
EDA Meet
Study Sess
TITLE:
RECOM
Motion t
Force Ag
POLICY
Does the
The atta
Southwe
would ha
model in
administr
BACKG
On July
of makin
change. T
making t
It is impo
has serve
model al
Eden Prai
The atta
cooperati
five partn
FINANC
A one-tim
However
forfeiture
Fund spe
and shou
VISION
None
Attachm
Prepared
Approve
Meeting P
P
ting A
sion D
Southwest
MMENDED
o authorize t
greement on
Y CONSIDE
City Counc
ched agreem
st Hennepin
ave as its p
ncluding a
rative and fin
GROUND:
11, 2011, Po
ng a change
The staff rep
his change.
ortant to emp
ed our comm
lows us to e
irie, Edina, a
ached Southw
ively by the
ner cities.
CIAL OR B
me contribu
r, rather tha
e payment w
ending. All
uld be neutra
N CONSIDE
ments:
d by:
ed by:
Public Hearing
Presentation
Action Item
Discussion Item
Hennepin D
ACTION:
the Mayor a
behalf of th
ERATION:
cil wish the C
ment provid
n Drug Task
primary outc
different r
nancial over
olice Dept. st
in our drug
port related
phasize that
munity well
expand upon
and Hopkins,
west Henne
e Hennepin
UDGET CO
ution of $10,
an an upfro
which will b
spending wi
l in terms of
ERATION:
Staff Repo
Southwest
John D. Lu
Tom Harm
g Action
Other:
Resolu
m Written
Drug Task Fo
and City Man
e City of St.
City to join t
des for the
k Force effe
comes a new
role for th
rsight.
taff met with
g task force
to that disc
our current
for 23 years
n and enhanc
which are in
epin Drug T
County Atto
ONSIDERA
,000 is requ
ont payment
be made bac
ill be manag
f General Fu
ort Dated Jul
t Hennepin D
use, Chief of
mening, City
Item C
tion O
n Report O
orce Agreem
nager to exe
Louis Park.
the Southwes
cities of St
ective Janua
w group of
he Hennepin
h Council at
affiliation.
cussion is att
drug task fo
s. However,
ce existing a
n many cases
Task Force
orney’s Offi
ATION:
ired to main
, this mone
ck to us and
ged accordin
und impact.
ly 11, 2011
Drug Task F
f Police
y Manager
Meeti
Consent Item
Other:
Other:
ment.
ecute the Sou
.
st Hennepin
t. Louis Par
ary 1, 2012.
partner citie
n County
t a study sess
The Counc
tached and
orce (Northw
looking forw
alignments w
s related to th
Agreement
fice and City
ntain consist
ey will be w
d will not re
ng to the term
orce Agreem
ing Date: D
Ag
Resoluti
uthwest Hen
n Drug Task
rk and Hop
. This chan
es and a ch
Sheriff’s O
sion to discu
il expressed
outlines the
west Metro D
ward this ch
with the citie
he work of th
t was drafte
y Attorneys
tency with c
withheld fro
quire an inc
ms of the att
ment
December 5,
genda Item
ion Ordi
nnepin Drug
Force?
pkins to join
nge in affili
hange in bus
Office relate
uss the possi
d support for
rationale be
Drug Task F
hange in bus
es of Minneto
he drug task f
ed and revi
representin
current mem
om the yea
crease in Ge
tached agree
2011
#: 4a
nance
Task
n the
iation
siness
ed to
ibility
r this
ehind
Force)
siness
onka,
force.
iewed
ng the
mbers.
ar-end
eneral
ement
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
Meeting Date: July 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change in Drug Task Force Affiliation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is advisory in nature and staff desires to receive feedback from the City Council on
the proposed change in the City’s affiliation with a drug task force.
During the past few months we have been involved in discussions with police chiefs representing
the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force (Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and the Hennepin
County Sheriffs Office) to explore the possibility of having the St. Louis Park Police Department
join this task force. If the decision is made to join this task force, a new joint powers agreement
will be drafted and presented to Council for approval prior to the end of this calendar year.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the Police Dept making a change in its
drug task force affiliation?
The proposed change in the drug task force affiliation would result in leaving the Northwest
Metro Drug Task Force (St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Plymouth, Golden Valley, New Hope, Crystal,
Robbinsdale and Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office) effective January 1st, 2012 and joining the
Southwest Metro Task Force at that time. The Hopkins Police Department has also participated
in these discussions, and is currently considering this change as well.
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been a member of the Northwest Metro Drug Task
Force since 1988. The most recent joint powers agreement we currently operate under was
approved by Council in 2006. This partnership has worked effectively and served our community
well for 23 years.
Looking forward, the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force offers a different model in several
areas. The current practice with the Northwest Drug Task Force is to rotate the finance and
administrative responsibilities among the member cities. In addition to the significant workload
this creates, accompanied by a long learning curve, the aftermath of the gang strike force demise
would suggest housing these responsibilities under one stable and defined agency umbrella is the
better practice. The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force houses these responsibilities under the
umbrella of Hennepin County.
In addition to the shift in business model, this shift would enhance already established alignment
with Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office in the following
areas:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
Longstanding ERU consortium - Our Emergency Response Unit trains bi-monthly with
teams from Edina, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Hopkins. In addition, these teams train
together at Camp Ripley for 5 days every year, and share a longstanding culture of
service and teamwork. Because the most common utilization of our ERU teams is the
execution of drug warrants, this relationship would benefit both units.
The growing partnership of independent PSAPs (Public Safety Answering Points) in
Hennepin County - We have been working very hard during the past few years to build
an alliance with other cities operating independent dispatch centers in Hennepin County.
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Hopkins all operate independent PSAPs. We are
creating back-up systems and networks with these cities to provide support during large
scale incidents and in the event of a major mechanical or technological failure. This
partnership was tested recently when construction related to the Northside Park project
resulted in our fiber (phone) line being accidentally cut. Our staff and services were
moved to Minnetonka Police Department for approximately seven hours, and PSAP
services were delivered without incident. In addition to our strong relationship with
Minnetonka in this area, we are having discussions with Hopkins on enhancing our
partnership capabilities in the PSAP area as they migrate to LOGIS.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office leads a consortium called CISA (Criminal
Information Sharing and Analysis) which organizes cities throughout Hennepin County
into geographic work groups that meet monthly to share information related to crime
trends and patterns including identification of high profile suspects. Our work group is
south of 394 and west of Minneapolis and includes Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and
Eden Prairie. This initiative has clearly added value as a force multiplier for our
community, and there is a strong sense of teamwork and cooperation in this work group.
Finally, although this is a fairly informal partnership practice, we provide and receive
mutual aid frequently with Minnetonka, Edina, and Hopkins. We request mutual aid less
frequently from cities north of 394, and they request mutual aid less frequently from us.
This practice is probably a function of the above three bullet points, but we do have a
longstanding practice of working well with the cities in the Southwest Metro Drug Task
Force in daily operations and resource sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Northwest Metro Drug Task Force has about $600,000 in its operations account. This money
represents a combination of forfeiture and grant funds, and by the Joint Powers Agreement
belongs equally to the 7 agencies in the task force. These funds have restricted use as defined by
statute, and we would not be able to take our “1/7th” with us if we leave the task force. This
money is used to fund most of the operating costs outside the base salary of each officer, which
is paid by the officer’s agency.
The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force would need a new Joint Powers Agreement if St. Louis
Park and/or Hopkins join the task force. The Sheriffs Office has spoken to the County Attorney
about this, and expects no issues or costs associated with this. Tom Scott would provide
assistance and review during the JPA development process as well. The Southwest Metro Drug
Task Force has a different business model which utilizes the Sheriffs Office and Hennepin
County as the fiscal host agency and administrative lead agency. The Sheriffs Office also
provides a Lieutenant as the operations supervisor for the work group. Each agency in the
Southwest Metro Drug Task Force pays the majority of the costs associated with participation
during the year, and at the end of the year grant and forfeiture funds are used to reimburse each
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
city’s general fund as a means of recovery for costs such as overtime and vehicles. Similar to the
Northwest Metro Drug Task Force, the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force does not reimburse an
officer’s home agency for the costs of base salary and benefits.
The current Southwest Metro Drug Task Force members have indicated they did not anticipate
charging any type of “equity assessment” for us to join. Minor adjustments to annual
reimbursements may be proposed to address sharing of existing assets/equity by new agencies.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
This SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT is between the
County of Hennepin, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Edina, the City of Hopkins, the City of
Minnetonka, the City of St. Louis Park and the other governmental units that subsequently agree to
its terms pursuant to the provisions herein (“SWHDTF Agreement”).
In 1996, the County of Hennepin, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Edina and the City of
Minnetonka (“the Cooperative Parties”) executed the DRUG TASK FORCE COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT (the “1996 Agreement”). The Cooperative Parties have been, and currently are,
operating a drug task force pursuant to the 1996 Agreement. The Cooperative Parties hereby agree
that the 1996 Agreement is hereby amended such that it shall be replaced in its entirety with this
Agreement and that the provisions in the 1996 Agreement that by their nature are intended to
survive the termination of that Agreement, including but not limited to Article VII, Indemnification
and Insurance, shall survive with respect to matters occurring under or related to the 1996
Agreement. For all matters occurring hereunder or related hereto, this SWHDTF Agreement shall
apply and control the parties rights, duties and obligations.
The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that (i) this SWHDTF Agreement does not
terminate or dissolve the task force that has been operating under the 1996 Agreement; (ii) the task
force that has been operating under the 1996 Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
pursuant to the terms herein; (iii) the City of Hopkins and the City of St. Louis Park will join the
task force operating under the SWHDTF Agreement; (iv) that task force, which includes the City of
Hopkins and the City of St. Louis Park, may hereinafter be referred to as the Southwest Hennepin
Drug Task Force (SWHDTF or Task Force); and (v) the parties hereto agreed to be bound by the
terms herein.
The parties to this Agreement are units of government responsible for the enforcement of
controlled substance laws in their respective jurisdictions. The parties desire to work
cooperatively in the enforcement of controlled substance laws and, for that purpose, are hereby
forming the Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force pursuant to the authority conferred upon the
parties by Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59.
1. No Separate Entity. It is the intent of the parties that the SWHDTF does not constitute a
separate municipal entity under Minnesota law.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
2. Definitions:
(a) Agent — means a peace officer, employed by a member, who is assigned to the
Task Force.
(b) Operating Committee or Committee — means the committee established to
administer the Task Force.
(c) Fiscal Agent — means a governmental unit that is a Member of the Task Force
and is responsible for the administration of financial and accounting functions for
the Task Force as set forth herein.
(d) Member — means a governmental unit that is a signatory to this agreement.
(e) Task Force — means this Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force.
(f) Lead Agent – the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office supervisor appointed to direct
investigative activities pursuant to the terms herein.
3. Members.
3.1 The initial members of the Task Force are the following Governmental Units:
Hennepin County
City of Eden Prairie
City of Edina
City of Hopkins
City of Minnetonka
City of St. Louis Park
3.2 The Members shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the various
provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The Members agree to act in good faith to undertake
resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement.
3.3 A governmental unit, as defined by Minn. Stat. §471.59, may join the Task Force and
become a Member upon (i) approval by the Committee; and (ii) execution of a copy of this
Agreement, or a counter-part, by the governmental unit’s governing body.
4. Term.
4.1 This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2012 and terminate December 31, 2014
unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall be
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
automatically extended for successive three-year terms upon the same terms, conditions, and
covenants, unless a majority of the Members votes to dissolve the Task Force prior to expiration
of the then current term.
5. Powers and Duties of the Task Force.
5.1 The Task Force shall perform the activities and duties described herein including but not
limited to the following:
(a) Disrupt the illicit drug traffic in the southwest suburban areas of Hennepin County by
immobilizing targeted violators and trafficking organizations; and
(b) Conduct undercover operations where appropriate and engage in other traditional
methods of investigation in order that the Task Force activities result in effective
prosecution.
5.2 To accomplish the objectives herein, all Task Force Members shall assign at least one
peace officer, duly licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, to the Task Force (“Agent”).
5.3 Unless otherwise provided herein, each Agent should be assigned for a minimum period
of three years. However, assignments shall be at the pleasure of both the Operating Committee
and the officer's employing agency and may be terminated by either one at any time. Upon
termination, for any reason, of any Agent’s assignment to the Task Force, the Member shall,
within forty-five (45) days, assign another Agent pursuant to its obligations herein.
5.4 Nothing herein is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or
establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting one of
the Members as the agent, representative or employee of another Member for any purpose or in
any manner whatsoever, except as specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement. Personnel
assigned to the Task Force by one of the Members shall not be considered temporary or
permanent employees of the Task Force or of any other Member for any purpose whatsoever or
be entitled to tenure rights or any rights or benefits by way of workers compensation, re-
employment insurance, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, severance pay, PERA
or any other right or benefit of another Member.
5.5 The Members acknowledge that it is their sole responsibility to provide all applicable
salary compensation and fringe benefits to their employees including but not limited to the
assigned Agents, Lead Agent and Committee Members (as defined herein). Benefits may
include, as applicable, but are not limited to: over-time, health care, disability insurance, life
insurance, re-employment insurance, FICA, Medicare, and PERA.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
5.6 Except as otherwise provided herein, each Member shall, at the Member’s sole cost and
expense, provide its personnel with vehicles, vehicle insurance, radios and law enforcement
equipment necessary to performance hereunder. The cost of operating the vehicle, including but
not limited to fuel, maintenance and repair of the same, shall be paid from the Task Force Funds
(as defined below).
5.7 Except for seized motor vehicles, all evidence and/or property seized by the Task Force
or its Agents, while said Agents are acting within the scope of this SWHDTF Agreement, shall
be inventoried and stored temporarily at a secure, designated area within a City of Eden Prairie
facility. The stored evidence and/or property shall be secure at all times. At the direction of the
Lead Agent, such inventoried evidence and/or property shall be subject to subsequent transfer to
the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office’s Crime Lab Property Room, or to another secure facility,
for secure storage. Seized motor vehicles shall be stored in an impound area designated by the
Lead Agent.
5.8 The Members, Committee Members, Agents, Lead Agent and other personnel shall
abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and
orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality. In the event a request for data is made pursuant
to the MGDPA, Hennepin County shall, in collaboration with the other Members, coordinate the
response thereto.
5.9 Media coverage of Task Force activities, including the dissemination of all press releases
must reference each Task Force Member agency, and shall be coordinated through the Hennepin
County Sheriff’s Office’s media specialist or his/her designee. The Hennepin County Sheriff’s
Office’s media specialist shall consult and collaborate with all Members regarding extraordinary,
unusual and non-standard media matters.
5.10 The Members, Committee Members, Lead Agent, Agent and other personnel shall
comply with applicable state and federal law.
6. Operating Committee.
6.1 The Task Force shall be administered by the Operating Committee. Each Member shall
assign its chief law enforcement officer, or his/her designee, to serve on the Committee
(“Committee Member”). The Committee Member may not be the Agent or the Lead Agent
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 9
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
assigned pursuant to the terms herein.
6.2 Committee Members shall not be deemed employees of, nor be compensated by Task
Force Funds.
6.3 The Committee will select from its members a chair to conduct meetings and other
officers as may be appropriate.
6.4 The Committee shall approve or amend the Task Force’s annual operating budget. As
necessary, the Committee shall, pursuant to said budget, authorize expenditures for acquisition of
law enforcement equipment not provided by the Members or Agents, office equipment and/or
any other equipment, supplies, goods, services or other commodities necessary for operation of
the Task Force. The Committee shall designate one Member to act as the purchasing agent for
such purchases.
6.5 The Committee shall meet as needed. A meeting may be called by any Committee
Member, or the Lead Agent.
6.6 The affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all Committee Members is required to:
(a) Approve or amend the budget;
(b) Approve the distribution of Task Force funds, monies and proceeds pursuant to the
terms herein;
(c) Remove a designated Fiscal Agent or Lead Agent;
(d) Add an additional Member pursuant to the terms of Section 3.
Unless otherwise specified herein, in all other matters, the Committee may take action based on
the vote of a simple majority. A quorum shall exist, and votes may be taken, if a majority of the
Committee Members or their designees are present. A Committee Member’s proxy or designee
may vote on behalf of the Committee Member. In the event the Committee is voting to remove
a designated Fiscal Agent or Lead Agent, that Agent’s Committee Member is entitled to a vote
on the matter.
6.7 The Committee may designate one or more of the Members as the agent for the Task
Force to apply for and receive grants, enter into contracts, incur expenses and make
expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and consistent with its
powers.
6.8 The Committee may recommend changes in this Agreement to its Members. This
Agreement may only be amended in writing by duly authorized execution by the Member’s
governing body.
6.9 The Committee must adopt policies and procedures to ensure that the work of the Task
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 10
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
Force and all Agents comply with applicable law and generally accepted law enforcement
management practices, including the following areas:
(a) Accountability of the Lead Agent;
(b) Legality of seizures and forfeitures;
(c) Inventory and accounting of seized evidence, funds, and vehicles; and
(d) Centralized management of case files.
7. Agents.
7.1 As indicated herein, each Member shall assign one licensed peace officer to serve on the
Task Force. Each Agent shall be assigned to the Task Force on a full-time basis for at least three
years. Additionally, the City of Eden Prairie shall assign one confidential administrative
employee to assist the Task Force.
7.2 Each assigned Agent shall be a duly licensed peace officer pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes and shall comply the licensing, education and training requirements set forth in
Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, subd. 12.
7.3 While assigned to the Task Force, all Agents shall be under the direct supervision and
control of the Lead Agent or his/her designee.
7.4 All agents assigned to the Task Force shall comply with the policies, procedures and
rules adopted by the Task Force Committee and the Lead Agent. In areas where the Task Force
Committee has not adopted a policy or rule, then personnel assigned to the Task Force shall
comply with the policies and rules promulgated by their employing agency. The Task Force
Lead Agent, or his or her designee, shall refer disciplinary matters or other instances of
misconduct involving an Agent to the Agent's Chief Law Enforcement Officer for investigation,
referral, or disposition. However, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Task Force
Lead Agent from reporting suspected criminal conduct directly to an outside agency for
investigation.
7.5 At the direction of the Lead Agent, Agents will be responsible for drug investigation,
including information management, case development, and case charging. Agents may also
assist other Agents in surveillance and undercover operations. Task Force Agents will work
cooperatively with assisting agencies. Agents acting under this Agreement in the jurisdiction of
another Member are acting in the line of duty and in the course of employment and are
authorized to exercise the powers of a peace officer therein. Each Agent shall be responsible for
necessary communications to the Agent’s Committee Member and employing agency.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 11
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
7.6 Agents assigned to the Task Force, while acting within the scope of this Agreement and
scope of their employment as a licensed peace officer but beyond the boundaries of their
respective jurisdictions, shall have full and complete authority of a peace officer as though
appointed by the governmental unit in which he/she is operating.
8. Lead Agent.
8.1 Unless replaced by the Committee pursuant to the terms herein, the Committee Member
from Hennepin County shall appoint a licensed peace officer to serve as the Task Force’s Lead
Agent.
8.2 The assigned Lead Agent shall be a duly licensed peace officer pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes and shall comply with the licensing, education and training requirements set forth in
Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, subd. 12.
8.3 The Lead Agent shall direct investigative activities based on intelligence provided by or
to the Task Force Members with priority given to case investigations that directly impact the
Members' communities. In accordance with the policies and rules promulgated by the Lead
Agent’s employing agency, the Lead Agent shall perform the following tasks:
(a) Guiding and directing the activities of personnel assigned to the Task Force;
(b) Establishing goals, priorities, and work assignments;
(c) Reviewing and approving reports;
(d) Scheduling assigned personnel;
(e) Providing input on employee evaluations, if requested;
(f) Allocating overtime work, if necessary;
(g) On a monthly basis, providing each Member with an “Activity Report” which
shall include, but is not limited to, expense and scheduling records, informant files
and related payment; and
(h) Cooperating with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to
accomplish the purpose for which the Task Force is organized.
9. Insurance and Indemnification.
9.1 The Members must acquire and maintain a policy of liability and/or law enforcement
insurance covering the activities of the Task Force and all Task Force Agents. This insurance
policy shall defend and indemnify the Members, Committee Members, Agents, Lead Agents and
other Task Force personnel as well as the Member’s elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 12
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
and employees for any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, (i) arising directly or indirectly from any act or
omission of any Member, Agent, Lead Agent, Committee Member or other Member employees
or personnel; or (ii) arising directly or indirectly from any Task Force activities or operations; or
(iii) arising from any decisions of the Task Force Committee.
9.2 Each party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions
of another party. The parties to this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of
another party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be
responsible for the acts or omissions of the other parties.
9.3 Nothing in this agreement shall constitute a waiver of the statutory limits on liability set
forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, Chapter 466 or a waiver of any available immunities
or defenses, and the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 for some or all of
the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any
party.
9.4 Nothing herein shall be construed to provide insurance coverage or indemnification to an
officer, employee, or volunteer of any Member for any act or omission for which the officer,
employee, or volunteer is guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.
9.5 Any excess or uninsured liability shall be borne equally by all the Members in equal
shares, but this does not include the liability of any individual officer, employee, or volunteer
which arises from his or her own malfeasance, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.
9.6 Each Member shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its own personnel. Each
Member will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its
own personnel while they are assigned to the Task Force or are otherwise participating in or
assisting with Task Force operations or activities. Each Member waives the right to, and agrees
that it will not bring any claim or suit against any other Member for any workers' compensation
benefits paid to its own employee or dependents, that arise out of participation in or assistance
with Task Force operations or activities, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by
the negligence of any other Member or its officers, employees, or volunteers.
9.7 Each Member shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each
Member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not, bring any claim or suit against any other
Member for damages to or loss of its equipment arising out of participation in or assistance with
Task Force operations or activities, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially
by the negligence of any other Members or its officers, employees, or volunteers.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 13
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
9.8 All insurance policies and certificates required under this agreement shall be open to
inspection by any Member and copies of the policies or certificates shall be submitted to a
Member upon written request.
10. Finances.
10.1 Task Force operations will be financed from forfeiture funds, monies, property or
proceeds from the sale of the same from Task Force cases, as wells as grant funds, drug
forfeitures, and any funds contributed by any Member pursuant to the terms herein (“Task Force
Funds”). All proceeds and monies generated by Task Force operations shall be returned to the
Task Force Funds. When the Task Force seizes property or funds in cooperation with other law
enforcement agencies, the Committee Chair and the Task Force Lead Agent will negotiate the
distribution of the forfeited funds with those agencies.
10.2 Upon Committee authorization to distribute funds and pursuant to the terms set forth
herein, funds, monies and proceeds shall be distributed in equal shares to each Member after
deduction of all Task Force costs and expenses herein stated.
10.3 Except as otherwise indicated herein, each Task Force Member shall contribute Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000) to the Task Force’s Funds to be used pursuant to the terms herein.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge and agree to the following:
(a) Hennepin County, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Edina and the City of
Minnetonka, each, has satisfied this obligation by making the required $10,000
contribution pursuant to the 1996 Agreement.
(b) Pursuant to the terms in Section 12, 13 and 14, distributions of Task Force Funds and
proceeds shall be with-held by the Members from St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and any other
future Members in lieu of said $10,000 obligation. Upon Committee approval of a
distribution, the Members shall debit each city’s obligation for the amount of the
obligation that the city would have otherwise received. When the entire $10,000
obligation has been debited, any additional distributions shall be distributed according to
the terms herein.
10.4 Hennepin County shall contribute an additional Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) to
be used for informant/evidentiary expense purposes (“Buy Fund”). The parties acknowledge and
agree that Hennepin County has satisfied this obligations by making the required $20,000
contribution pursuant to the 1996 Agreement.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 14
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
11. Fiscal Agent.
11.1 Unless replaced by the Committee pursuant to the terms herein, Hennepin County shall
serve as the Task Force’s Fiscal Agent.
11.2 The Fiscal Agent shall serve as sole administrator of all funds contributed by Task Force
Members or otherwise received by the Task Force, and in such capacity is authorized to receive
all funds for deposit and make disbursements therefrom in accordance with law and generally
accepted accounting principles. In conjunction therewith, the Fiscal Agent shall maintain current
and accurate records of all obligations and expenditures of Task Force Funds in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. The Fiscal Agent shall receive and manage forfeiture
funds from Task Force operations on behalf of the Members and shall return forfeiture funds
pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or at the direction of the Committee.
11.3 The Fiscal Agent shall provide each Committee Member and the Lead Agent with
quarterly financial and statistical reports pursuant to applicable financial and accounting
standards. The Task Force shall maintain all such reports and related records for a period of six
(6) years after dissolution of the Task Force.
11.4 The Fiscal Agent shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the
Task Force and shall make and file a report to Committee Members which includes the following
information:
(a) The financial condition of the Task Force;
(b) The status of all Task Force projects;
(c) The business transacted by the Task Force;
(d) The receipt and disbursement of funds, monies, proceeds or other property;
(e) All Task Force distributions of funds, monies and proceeds;
(f) Quarterly financial reports;
(g) Other matters which affect the interests of the Task Force.
11.5 If Task Force Funds are insufficient to fund Task Force operations, the Committee may
request that the Members provide additional sustaining contributions to the Task Force Funds
and the Buy Fund.
11.6 The Task Force's Funds may be expended by the Committee in accordance with this
Agreement in a manner determined by the Committee. In no event shall there be an expenditure
of Task Force Funds except in accordance with the approved budget.
11.7 Each Member agrees that any other Member, the State Auditor, or their duly authorized
representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 15
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any
books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and
procedures of the Task Force, or the Member, and involve transactions relating to this SWHDTF
Agreement. As necessary, the Fiscal Agent shall transcribe any Task Force books, documents,
papers, records etc which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Task
Force.
12. Member Withdrawal.
12.1 A Member may withdraw from the Task Force by providing written notice to the
Committee.
12.2 This SWHDTF Agreement shall apply and control the withdrawing Member’s rights,
duties and obligations with respect to all matters occurring while a Member or related to being a
Member including but not limited to matters occurring under or related to the 1996 Agreement.
12.3 Unless the Committee agrees to a shorter time period, the Member’s obligation to the
Task Force, including but not limited to assigning an Agent shall continue for sixty (60) days
following notice. A withdrawing Member's right to vote shall terminate upon the expiration of
such Member's obligations to the Task Force as set forth pursuant to the preceding sentence.
12.4 The withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to any distribution of funds or share of
Task Force property after the expiration of the Member's obligations to the Task Force as set
forth in the first sentence of section 12.3. Property owned by the Member but in the Task
Force’s possession shall be returned, transferred and/or distributed to the withdrawing Member.
In the event the City of St. Louis Park, the City of Hopkins, or a future Member withdraws
pursuant to these provisions before in-lieu-of distributions have satisfied their obligation to
contribute $10,000 to the Task Force (pursuant to Section 10), the withdrawing city shall pay
whatever amount remains unsatisfied at the time of their withdrawal.
13. Member Removal.
13.1 The Committee may, upon a majority vote of all Committee Members, remove any
Member if that Member fails to comply with the terms of this SWHDTF Agreement, fails to
properly and timely fulfill its obligations hereunder, violates any of the covenants, agreements or
stipulations herein, or for other good cause. The Committee Member for the Member subject to
removal is entitled to a vote on the matter.
13.2 The removed Member shall not be entitled to any distribution of funds or share of Task
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 16
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
Force property. Property owned by the Member but in the Task Force’s possession shall be
returned, transferred and/or distributed to the removed Member. The Committee shall determine
the effective date of the Member’s removal and shall establish the Member’s duties and
obligations pending removal. In the event the City of St. Louis Park, the City of Hopkins, or
future Member is removed pursuant to these provision before in-lieu-of distributions have
satisfied their obligation to contribute $10,000 to the Task Force (pursuant to Section 10), the
removed city shall pay whatever amount remains unsatisfied at the time of their withdrawal.
13.3 This SWHDTF Agreement shall apply and control the removed Member’s rights, duties
and obligations with respect to all matters occurring while a Member or related to being a
Member including but not limited to matters occurring under or related to the 1996 Agreement.
A removed Member shall not be relieved of any liability incurred during the time while the
Member was participating in the Task Force. The Members are entitled to exercise all legal
rights and remedies toward the removed Member and nothing herein shall be construed to limit,
modify or restrict those rights and remedies.
14. Task Force Dissolution.
14.1 Upon a majority vote of all Members entitled to vote on Task Force matters, the Task
Force may be voluntarily dissolved.
14.2 In the event the Task Force is involuntarily dissolved or voluntarily dissolved pursuant to
the terms herein, the Committee shall provide for the distribution and transfer of all Task Force
funds and assets in the following manner:
(a) Governmental units that have not been Members, continuously, for thirty-six (36)
months preceding the Committee’s dissolution of the Task Force shall not be entitled to
any distribution of funds or share of Task Force property. Property owned by the
Member but in the Task Force’s possession shall be returned, transferred and/or
distributed to the Member. In the event the Task Force is so dissolved before the in-lieu-
of distributions have satisfied the City of St. Louis Park’s, the City of Hopkins’, or a
future Member’s obligation(s) to contribute $10,000 to the Task Force (pursuant to
Section 10), the city shall pay whatever amount remains unsatisfied at the time of their
withdrawal.
(b) Governmental units that have been Members, continuously, for the 36 months
immediately preceding notice of dissolution shall be entitled to the following
distributions:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 17
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
(i) The first $20,000 of the Task Force’s monetary assets and funds shall be
distributed to Hennepin County to repay its Buy Fund contribution;
(ii) the Task Force’s remaining monetary assets and funds shall distributed
pursuant to the Distributional Share of Monetary Assets and Funds calculation set
forth below.
(iii) Property owned by the Member but in the Task Force’s possession shall be
returned, transferred and/or distributed to the Member;
(iv) the Committee may, upon a majority vote of all Committee Members entitled
to a share hereunder, elect to liquidate and/or sell non-monetary Task Force assets
and the proceeds distributed as Proportional Share.
(v) non-monetary Task Force assets not liquidated or sold shall be distributed in
Proportional Share at current market value, in like-kind and/or as the parties
otherwise agree;
(c) The thirty-six (36) month period immediately preceding dissolution of the Task
Force, as indicated above, will be measured from the date the Member executes this
SWHDTF Agreement pursuant to the terms herein through the date that a majority of the
Members affirmatively votes to dissolve the Task Force.
(d) The term “Proportional Share”, as used herein, shall mean the proportion of the
applicable Members number of years of participation in the Task Force, including
participation under the 1996 Agreement, as a share of the total years of participation of
all Members so entitled to said share. A fraction of a year will be counted as a full year if
the fraction is at least 50%.
(e) the “Distributional Share of Monetary Assets and Funds” calculation shall be
performed as follows:
(i) the Fiscal Agent shall record the Task Force’s monetary assets and funds on
January 1, 2012 (“Monetary Assets and Funds Attributable to the 1996 Agreement”);
(ii) the Monetary Assets and Funds Attributable to the 1996 Agreement shall be
distributed, in equal shares, among the County of Hennepin, the City of Eden
Prairie, the City of Edina, and the City of Minnetonka;
(iii) then, additionally, the remaining funds shall be distributed to all eligible
Members, including but not limited to the County of Hennepin, the City of Eden
Prairie, the City of Edina, the City of Minnetonka, pursuant to Proportional Share
calculation herein.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 18
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
15. Additional Provisions
15.1 This agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an
original, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
15.2 Except as provided herein regarding the 1996 Agreement, the entire SWHDTF
Agreement between the parties is contained herein and this SWHDTF Agreement supersedes all
oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items
that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this SWHDTF
Agreement.
15.3 Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this SWHDTF
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this
SWHDTF Agreement signed by the parties.
15.4 Failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under
this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to
in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the
entire term of the SWHDTF Agreement.
15.5 The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the
parties and their performance.
15.6 If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions will not be affected.
SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 19
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Reviewed by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA
Attorney’s Office
By:
Chair of Its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk of County Board
Date:
By:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Department Director of
Date:
(signatures continued on additional pages)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 20
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By: ________________________
Its Mayor
Reviewed by City
Attorney’s Office:
____________________ And: _______________________
Eden Prairie City Attorney Its City Manager
(signatures continued on additional pages)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 21
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
CITY OF EDINA
By: ________________________
Its Mayor
Reviewed by City
Attorney’s Office:
____________________ And: _______________________
Edina City Attorney Its City Manager
(signatures continued on additional pages)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 22
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
CITY OF HOPKINS
By: ________________________
Its Mayor
Reviewed by City
Attorney’s Office:
____________________ And: _______________________
Hopkins City Attorney Its City Manager
(signatures continued on additional pages)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 23
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
CITY OF MINNETONKA
By: ________________________
Its Mayor
Reviewed by City
Attorney’s Office:
____________________ And: _______________________
Minnetonka City Attorney Its City Manager
(signatures continued on additional pages)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 24
Subject: Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force Agreement
SOUTHWEST HENNEPIN DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Governmental Unit(s), by, action of their governing
bodies, caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, § 471.59.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: ________________________
Its Mayor
Reviewed by City
Attorney’s Office:
____________________ And: _______________________
St. Louis Park City Attorney Its City Manager
(signatures continued on additional pages)
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Call for a Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council on January 17th,
2012 relative to the proposed Oak Hill Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to hold a public hearing to consider the establishment of an
Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate Anderson-KM Builders’
construction of a 21,432 SF office building at 3340 Republic Avenue?
BACKGROUND:
Newly-formed Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from the former Anderson
Builders’ location on Park Glen Rd in St. Louis Park as well as former KM Building's offices in
Minneapolis. The full-service real estate development, design management, and construction
company plans to build a new office facility and consolidate its operations there. The proposed
office site is the property owned by Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The proposed
Oak Hill II office building would be 21,432 SF and two stories. Oak Hill II would be an
attractive brick structure designed to complement the original Oak Hill office building next door.
Anderson-KM Builders would occupy approximately half the new building (6,001 SF of office
and 4,715 SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF would be built out as office space and leased
to one or more tenants. Oak Hill II would be marketed to general office users and specialty
medical users given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
Total construction costs of the proposed building are $2.7 million or $127/SF comprised of
$100/SF for the shell and blended rate of $27/SF for tenant improvements. The Redeveloper’s
expected return on investment of less than ten (10) percent is below industry standards of ten
(10) percent to twelve (12) percent (depending on the size and risk associated with the project).
Based on its review of the proposed project, Ehlers and Associates found that Anderson-KM
Builder’s cost and revenue assumptions were reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore it
concluded that Anderson-KM Builders is unable to undertake the proposed project without
the EDA’s financial assistance.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
In order for the Redeveloper to achieve a modest return on investment, the proposed project
warrants approximately $300,000 in assistance. Oak Hill II meets the requirements of an
Economic Development TIF District (9 year TIF District) under the 2010 Minnesota Jobs Bill.
This law temporarily allows local governments to create an Economic Development District for
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill II Tax Increment Finance District
any type of new construction provided construction commenced by July 1, 2012. If this type of
TIF district were created, the proposed project would generate a present value (principle amount)
of approximately $300,000 over the life of the district. These funds would then be used to
reimburse Anderson-KM Builders on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing
method under the City's TIF Policy.
Request for TIF Assistance
At the October 10th Study Session the EDA reviewed the preliminary TIF Application from
Anderson-KM Builders which was favorably received. As a result, staff was directed to call for
a public hearing on the proposed Economic Development TIF district and to begin drafting a
formal Redevelopment Contract with Anderson-KM Builders.
Call for Public Hearing
The TIF program is run by the EDA. However in order to create a TIF district, city councils are
statutorily required to hold a public hearing. To start the TIF district process the EDA must
formally request the City Council to set a date and hold a public hearing. Calling for the public
hearing is the first step in the formal creation of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing
District. The public hearing is scheduled to be held on January 17, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Setting a hearing date for the Oak Hill TIF II District does not, in itself, authorize or commit the
EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply enables
the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district. The EDA will
have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along with other
terms when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is presented. Such a contract is
likely to be submitted to the EDA prior to the formal approval of the TIF district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Anderson-KM Builders up to $300,000 in tax increment financing assistance so as to
enable the construction of a $4.3 million office building. It is proposed that the assistance be
provided through pay-as-you-go tax increment from the proposed Oak Hill TIF II TIF District.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Oak Hill II office project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution
TIF Schedule
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill II Tax Increment Finance District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OAK
HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, AND THE
ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on January 17, 2012, at
approximately 7:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on a proposed modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Modification”), the proposed
establishment of the Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development
district) (the “TIF District”), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the TIF District (the “TIF Plan”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082
and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended.
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff and consultants are
directed and authorized to prepare the Modification and TIF Plan and to forward such documents
to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions, including Hennepin County and Independent School
District No. 283. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing,
together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official
newspaper of the City not less than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to January 17, 2012, and to
place a copy of the Modification and TIF Plan on file in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall and
to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill II Tax Increment Finance District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under M.S. Section 469-176, Subd. 4c(d))
November 28, 2011 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources and uses
of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
December 5, 2011 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
December 5, 2011 City Council calls for a public hearing.
December 12, 2011 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the
property to be included in the TIF District.
NA County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days
prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF
Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Because the
City staff believes that the proposed tax increment financing district will not require
unplanned county road improvements, the TIF Plan will not be forwarded to the County
Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. Please be aware that the County Board could
claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing
December 16, 2011 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or
before December 16, 2011]
December 19, 2011 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
January 4, 2012 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in compliance with
City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
January 5, 2012 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than
30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to the St. Louis Park
Sun Sailor on or before December 29, 2011 at sunlegals@acnpapers.com]
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishing Oak Hill II Tax Increment Finance District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OAK HILL II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(an economic development district established under M.S. Section 469-176, Subd. 4c(d))
January 17, 2012 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
EDA adopts an Interfund Loan in connection with the Oak Hill II TIF District.
January 17, 2012 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of the
Oak Hill II Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the
Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the City on or before
January 9, 2012]
City Council adopts an Interfund Loan in connection with the Oak Hill II TIF
District.
January 18, 2012 City can issue building permits.
_________, 2012 City authorizes Ehlers to request certification of the TIF District.
By June 30, 2012 Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
Before July 1, 2012 Construction of project begins.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Extension of Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve extending the Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health Mutual
Aid Agreement for one year, expiring December 31, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue participation in the Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental
Health Mutual Aid Agreement?
BACKGROUND:
Originally, the purpose of the agreement was to strengthen the preparedness of Minnesota’s
public health system by making personnel, equipment and other resources available to a political
subdivision in the event of an emergency, training, drill or exercise. Considering their close
proximity, these agencies recognized that it was in their best interest to assist one another in the
event of an emergency.
In 2008 the city entered into the agreement when it was expanded to include metro cities
providing environmental health services as delegated by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Cities included Brooklyn Park, Maplewood, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, St. Paul and Wayzata.
The Agreement was renamed “Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health Mutual Aid
Agreement”.
DISCUSSION:
The current agreement expires on December 31, 2011. The extension will be for one year only
and will expire on December 31, 2012. Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health
entities in Minnesota lead by Susan Palchick, Program Manager for Hennepin County Human
Services and Public Health, will be developing a new 5 – 7 year agreement. Participating cities
will receive information regarding this agreement early in 2012 for review and to provide
comments and final approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None immediately applicable. In case of an emergency requiring more than eight hours of assistance
from a responsible party, the agreement provides for reimbursement of salary and expenses.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Amendment to the Mutual Aid Agreement No. A071858
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Extension of Twin Cities Public Health & Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement
AMENDMENT NO. 1 To the
Twin Cities Public Health and Environmental Health Entities in Minnesota
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT NO. A071858
The original participating parties set forth on Exhibit A of the Agreement, having executed the
Twin Cities Public Health Department in Minnesota PUBLIC HEALTH MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT on or about February, 2007 and, further, those same parties shall hereby execute
this Amendment No.1.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Agreement No. A071858 between the herein-named parties is
hereby amended in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
1. Section VIII., DURATION, of the original contract shall be amended to read:
“This Agreement will commence upon August 13, 2008 and shall terminate December 31, 2012,
unless terminated sooner pursuant to section XI herein. This Agreement will only apply to those
parties who have lawfully executed the document and returned a copy to:
Hennepin County Public Health Emergency Preparedness
Attention: Emergency Preparedness Unit Supervisor
1011 First Street South., Suite 215
Hopkins, MN 55343
(612) 543-5220”
This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each counterpart for all purposes
being deemed an original and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same agreement.
Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of said Agreement No. A071858
shall remain in full force and effect.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Extension of Twin Cities Public Health & Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on the
______ day of ___________________, 2011, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County
officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions
herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
By:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Date:
By:
Chair of its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
By:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
Date:
Reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office
By:
Date:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Subject: Extension of Twin Cities Public Health & Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Its Mayor
Date:
By:
Its City Manager
Date:
Reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
By:
City Attorney
Date:
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Agreement with Hennepin County Sentencing to Service (STS) Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve entering into a service agreement with the Hennepin County Department of
Corrections for continuing to use their crews from the Sentencing to Service Program (STS
Program).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue an agreement with the Hennepin County Department of
Corrections to purchase services from the Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program)?
BACKGROUND:
The Parks Department, Facilities Maintenance and Public Works Department each had separate
contracts with the Hennepin County Corrections Department for services including janitorial
services, litter pick up, hand mowing, buck thorn removal and other lower level maintenance
from the Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program). Each department paid for the services
received within each contract. The City of St. Louis Park has had contracts with Hennepin
County for the use of the STS crews for more than 13 years and the program has been quite
successful for the City. The crews are able to assist our staff with many lower level maintenance
items that we are unable to accomplish in a timely fashion.
To simplify contracts, staff would like to process one combined contract for crews that service
the Parks Department, Facilities Maintenance and the Public Works Department.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The two year contract will be in effect January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013 and shall not
exceed $139,900.80. A payment of $69,950.40 will be submitted to the County in 2012 and
$69,950.40 will be submitted in 2013. This is a budget item included in the Parks and Recreation
and Public Works budgets. Because combining the contracts into one contract for 2 years brings
the dollar amount to a cost that is over $100,000, the City Attorney indicated that the City
Council should approve this contract.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Contract
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2012 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2012 Boulevard Tree
Pruning Contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue the City’s boulevard tree trimming program for 2012?
BACKGROUND:
This will be our ninth year of city-wide contract rotation boulevard tree pruning. The goal of this
contract is to increase the safety, health and function of all boulevard trees by removing low
branches, removing deadwood and eliminating future impediments to growth. This contract only
covers boulevard trees. Ostvig Tree, Inc. has successfully completed the 2007, 2008, 2010, and
2011 boulevard tree pruning contracts for the City of St. Louis Park. Parks and city-owned
property trees are rotationally pruned by Parks Maintenance staff.
Beginning on approximately January 3 and continuing until March 31, 2012 this contractual
rotational pruning will be performed, beginning in the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood,
continuing into the Willow Park neighborhood, then moving to the Minikahda Vista and
Browndale neighborhoods. This rotational pruning keeps our cyclical tree maintenance on a nine
year rotation.
BID ANALYSIS:
Ostvig Tree, Inc. presented the lowest responsible bid from a 2009 bid opening and was awarded
the contract for 2010 and 2011. The City is renewing the 2011contract with Ostvig for 2012. As
is standard practice for contract renewals, other quotes were solicited from other tree companies.
City Attorney, Tom Scott, has reviewed the contract with Ostvig and is comfortable with
renewing this contract. This will be the last year for renewing this contract. The comparison
quotes based upon specifications for a two person crew with adequate equipment on a per hour
basis, are:
Ostvig Tree, Inc. ........................................................$ 75.80 per hour (2009 bid)
Heritage Shade Tree Consultants ...............................$105.00 per hour (2011 bid)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Ostvig, Tree Inc. will continue to prune boulevard trees until they reach the overall $60,000
contract amount. As in the past, staff will closely monitor the contractual obligations and work of
the contractor.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Managing our urban forest is consistent with the city’s Strategic Direction. “St. Louis Park is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 5, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract No. 99-11 with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. – Project No. 2010-
1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$9,009.44 for the Park Center Boulevard Project, Contract No. 99-11.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2011, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $191,480.23 to Northwest
Asphalt, Inc. for the Park Center Boulevard Project – Project No. 2010-1100. The project
included asphalt pavement mill and overlay work on Park Center Blvd from just north of Excelsior
Blvd to 500 feet south of W. 36th Street.
The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$190,636.08. The project had one change order in the amount of -$549.86 and overall quantity
under runs amounting to $294.29.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Final Contract Cost
The cost of the work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 99-09 is now estimated as
follows:
Original Contract $191,480.23
Change Order No. 1 -$549.86
Quantity Underrun -$294.29
Total $190,636.08
Funding Sources
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2011 capital budget. The project is funded by
State Aid funds raised through the gas tax.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Page 2City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 99-11 w/Northwest Asphalt - Project No. 2010-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 11-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 2010-1100
CONTRACT NO. 99-11
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated June 6, 2011, Northwest Asphalt, Inc.
has satisfactorily completed the construction of the Park Center Boulevard project per Contract No.
99-11.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $191,480.23
Change Orders -$ 549.86
Underruns -$ 294.29
Previous Payments $181,626.64
Balance Due $ 9,009.44
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance renewal for
December 1, 2011 – November 30, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council approve the continuation of providing Worker’s Compensation insurance through
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for the new premium amount for
December 1, 2011 – November 30, 2012?
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, Council approved participation in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation coverage.
The policy year for this coverage runs from December 1 – November 30 each year.
Self-Insured Costs:
From 1993 to 2003, the City was self-insured for Worker’s Compensation, using Sedgwick
Claims Management to administer our claims. We continue to be responsible for work comp
activity, including reactivated claims, from that timeframe. We are hopeful that we will be able
to continue using Sedgwick for administration of these old outstanding claims. Sedgwick
charges $10,000 each year for claims administration, plus we are responsible for any claims
activity. We have included this in the 2012 budget.
Fully-Insured Costs:
LMCIT has provided us with a renewal quote for the new contract year. The quote is as follows:
Current
12/1/10 – 11/30/11
Renewal
12/1/11 – 11/30/12
Increase
$454,829 $478,619 5.2%
The increase is based on estimated payroll and our experience modification factor (review of
claims activity) of 1.07. An experience factor higher than 1.0 indicates we need to pay more due
to previous years of high claims activity. Our 2012 experience modification factor is based on
our claims from 2008, 2009, and 2010.
The Citywide Safety Committee regularly reviews worker’s compensation claims activity and is
aware of the upward trend in claims. The Committee members work closely with loss control
consultants from the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust to develop programs or training that
addresses our high claims areas.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal
Volunteers:
In January 2007, the City began providing Worker’s Compensation coverage to City volunteers
via LMCIT for an annual cost of $2,100. The cost for this renewal has decreased to $1,595 for
2012, and staff recommends continued participation in this program.
RECOMMENDATION:
We are pleased with how the Worker’s Compensation claims are being handled through LMCIT.
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing continued
participation in the LMCIT for Worker’s Compensation insurance coverage effective December
1, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for the fully-insured Worker’s Compensation coverage through LMCIT are included in
the budget and charged back to departments. Funds for administration of old outstanding claims
from when we were self-insured with Sedgwick have also been reserved in the uninsured loss
fund of the budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Worker’s Compensation Insurance Renewal
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCIT)
WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt Worker’s Compensation coverage and
programs to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that:
1. The City continues coverage with the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust for Worker’s
Compensation coverage effective December 1, 2011.
2. The City Manager shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made
between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for Worker’s
Compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary
administration, processing, and settlement of such open claims.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 5, 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:
Authorize Encroachment Agreement at 3300 Idaho Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to authorize the execution of an encroachment agreement for a fence at 3300 Idaho
Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to authorize an encroachment agreement as noted in this staff report?
The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
BACKGROUND:
The Connolly’s own the house at 3300 Idaho Avenue South. They would like to install a fence
that encloses their back yard and side door which would allow them direct access from the house
to the enclosed yard. However, their property line is very close to their home (approximately six
feet away from their house), and is in the middle of their sidewalk (see attached aerial photo). In
order to install this fence, it would need to encroach into the right-of-way by approximately one
foot. The City’s Land Use Policy allows this type of private use of public land with an
encroachment agreement. This encroachment agreement, drafted by the City Attorney, releases
the City from any liability and allows the City to terminate the agreement at any time with 30
days’ notice. The agreement will be recorded against the property and run with the land. All
costs of construction, future maintenance, relocation or removal would be borne by the property
owner. Approval of the encroachment agreement will be subject to verification that there is no
interference with private or public utilities.
Staff has reviewed the application and site plan and finds that there is no conflicting use of this
easement. The distance between the proposed fence and the curb is approximately 15 feet,
which allows for plenty of space for any potential City needs in the future.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of recording this encroachment agreement with Hennepin County will be covered by
the permit fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Authorize Encroachment Agreement at 3300 Idaho Avenue South
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 4133 Utica Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4133 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0050.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Lupe Dircz, owner of the single family residence at 4133 Utica Avenue South, has requested the City
to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for her home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $3,578.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4133 Utica Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
4133 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0050
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 4133 Utica Avenue South, has petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 4133 Utica Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $3,578.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0204
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Edith Ngang, owner of the single family residence at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South, has requested the
City to authorize the repair of the water service line for her home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $2,585.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2946 Yosemite Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
2846 YOSEMITE AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0204
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South has petitioned the
City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for
the single family residence located at 2846 Yosemite Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,585.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4k
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 12, 2011 through November
25, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
630.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
630.00
275.22WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
77.76SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.95SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
275.22SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER
275.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
1,011.39
451.27STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
451.27
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEABBOTT, GORDON
30.00
6,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWABDEL, MARK
6,000.00
341.44PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
341.44
600.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAE2S
600.00
64.13BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESAIM ELECTRONICS
64.13
38.18OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
38.18
83,007.50ESCROWSGENERALAKARE COMPANIES LLC
83,007.50
100.00ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGSALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH
100.00
723.00REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALL ELEMENTS INC
1,956.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
2,679.00
487.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
487.00
7,981.01-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEAMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION
159,620.32MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
151,639.31
194.07GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
137.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
87.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
117.08ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
94.37WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
94.37SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
15.73STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
838.20
10.46-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,118.34SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,107.88
360.00OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIESANDERBERG
360.00
123.47WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSANDERSON, ERIK
123.47
200.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHERAPOGEE RETAIL LLC
200.00
780.14GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
91.30ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
871.44
127.91PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEATOMIC RECYCLING
744.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
64.08WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
63.83SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,000.36
238.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
238.50
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
131.58GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
131.58
36.41WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBALTES, MARY JEN
36.41
30.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTBANK OF AMERICA/EMC MORTGAGE C
30.00
47.43FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBANKER'S EQUIPMENT SERVICE INC
47.43
12.80ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBATTERIES PLUS
12.80
412.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBELL, DANIEL
412.50
1,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBELLONE, ADAM
1,500.00
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00
185.35INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBOBIER, HEIDI
185.35
13.04OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
13.04
362.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
362.42
231.00ENGINEERING G & A ADVERTISINGBRINK, SCOTT
231.00
1,246.48STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBROCK WHITE CO LLC
1,246.48
12.16POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBURR, SUSAN
12.16
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,053.36ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
45.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
210.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
6,308.36
223.44OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCARDIAC SCIENCE INC
223.44
409.33IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
409.33
125.47-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCASCADE ENGINEERING
1,950.47SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
1,825.00
32.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCEDAR SMALL ENGINE
32.34
7,800.00LIVE WHERE YOU WORK PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
7,800.00
655.56FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
252.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
19.68WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
50.22NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
2,339.13WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
96.05REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
103.22SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,516.24
2,146.69FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,095.33ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
7,242.02
141.98IT G & A TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
209.60COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
38.40E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
389.98
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSECHENVERT, CHARLES
30.00
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
42.87FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
42.87
1,285.05HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCLARITY CENTRAL
1,285.05
1,339.66CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1,339.66
191.53INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
191.53
5,302.31EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
5,302.31
5,825.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICONTRACTING SOLUTIONS INC
5,825.00
8,158.89POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
107.98POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
107.98
1,800.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTCUES INC
1,800.00
8,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWDAGGET, BRIAN
8,000.00
1,415.58WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
1,415.58
38.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
717.67SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
703.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,460.15
30.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
30.00
219.87SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTSDISCOUNT STEEL INC
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
219.87
629.07BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
629.07
2,932.06SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
2,932.06
5,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWDORN, STEFAN
5,500.00
1,575.00ESCROWSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,757.50GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,332.50
52.52INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGELDER-JONES BUILDING PERMIT SE
52.52
968.39PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
968.39
122.94OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
122.94
13.53WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSENTERRA REALTY
13.53
1,000.35PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS IN
1,000.35
2,720.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
2,720.00
427.45PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
427.45
18.33SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFEDEX
18.33
29.64HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
29.64
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
311.72ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
311.72
94.19OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLSFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
94.19
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEFISHMAN, HARVEY
30.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEFRITZ, JO ANN
30.00
43.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSEFULTON, ADAM
81.59COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
33.99GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL SUPPLIES
158.58
5,270.00ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
1,466.50ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
6,736.50
346.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGENEREUX FINE WOOD PRODUCTS
346.28
9,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGOLIATH HYDRO-VAC INC
9,800.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEGOODMAN, LEE
30.00
150.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
150.00
2,664.11WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
2,664.11
6,035.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
6,035.00
10,584.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
10,584.25
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
330.00FINANCE G & A TRAININGHAB INC
330.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEHAGEN, STEVEN
30.00
276.06OPERATIONSTRAININGHAMPTON, BOB
276.06
51.62PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHANSEN, SHANNON
51.62
84.36WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHASLERUD, CARRIE
84.36
1,169.21BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
1,169.21
325.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHAYES, BRANDON
325.00
70.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHELBERG, KRIS
70.00
1,475.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHENDERSON, STUART & MELANIE
1,475.00
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,830.38
664.28POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFIC
664.28
180.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,829.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
180.48WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,829.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,831.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,849.96
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHINZ, MARY
362.50
57.91WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
57.91
625.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHISLOP, DANIEL
625.00
50.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOLMAN, ARTHUR
50.00
61.41GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
106.30SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.01SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
12.11SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS
25.61BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
281.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
235.46PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.93WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.68WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
57.77WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
5.77WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
82.10WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
49.11WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
31.90SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
121.76SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,124.05
3.19GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
16.63WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.82
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEHOVE, SAMUAL
30.00
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHRGREEN
600.00
3,371.96SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
3,371.96
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
157.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
1,016.60ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,173.79
1,595.25EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,595.25
445.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
445.00
407.18WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
407.18SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
407.18SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
407.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,628.72
9.62PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
9.62
95.00OPERATIONSTELEPHONEINFINITY WIRELESS
95.00
169.77SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINTL SECURITY PRODUCTS
169.77
247.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
247.26
1,189.98OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
1,189.98
3.42GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
3.42
2,585.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOE'S SEWER SERVICE INC
3,578.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
6,163.00
358.30HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, DICK
358.30
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
26.06WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSJONES, JANELLE
26.06
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
18.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
360.00GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL SERVICES
378.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEKISTNAN, MANDRECAR
30.00
70.00REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKLEIN, DOLORES
70.00
1,666.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
1,666.00
115.52E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATKRUELLE, BRYAN
115.52
48.16WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLABARRE O'CONNOR REHAB LLC
48.16
155.51PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
155.51
390.00ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLANG, LISA
180.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
132.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
702.00
6,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWLANGE, RYAN
6,000.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSELARSON, GRANT
30.00
370.66BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
370.66
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
200.00VARIANCESZONING/SUBDIVISIONLATTERY, KAREN
200.00
2,226.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,226.00
40.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
1,125.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,165.00
195.73INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
195.73
547.10MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDILIGHTING HOUSE USA INC
547.10
1,285.05HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTLISEC, TOM
1,285.05
645.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
645.08
1,478.40IT G & A TELEPHONELOGIS
42,352.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
3,840.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
47,670.40
5,856.69FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
5,856.69
150.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGMAAPT
150.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEMALENIUS, DANIEL
30.00
781.60FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
781.60
237.52GENERAL REPAIR OFFICE SUPPLIESMARS CO, W P & R S
237.52
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
210.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMBPTA
210.00
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMENDIS, MELODY
1,000.00
220.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
220.00
298,059.29OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
298,059.29
930.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
930.00
413.40PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
413.40
122.91WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINVALCO INC
122.91
1,282.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC
1,282.85
20.00BASKETBALLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMRPA
20.00
250.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
250.00
82.97GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
127.99SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS
785.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
257.67GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,253.99
1,285.05HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTNELSON, SCOTT
1,285.05
5,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICENEOGOV
5,000.00
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,420.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTNORTH METRO COMPANIES
3,420.00
1,032.98PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
1,032.98
142.29SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT
234.74POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
28.26INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
405.29
1,163.59TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
1,163.59
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEOLSON, SCOTT
30.00
839.01PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
53.44WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
24.05NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
916.50
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEORTALE, JENNIFER
172.00
144.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOSDOBA, KATIE
144.00
66.60INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
66.60
1,974.97NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARK THEATER COMPANY
1,974.97
80.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
80.75
85.69ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESPECCHIA, TOM
85.69
40.00ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUEPELUSO, RITA
40.00
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
610.80INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
610.80
687.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
273.51GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
961.15
20,000.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
20,000.00
22,165.67TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
22,165.67
224.98PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYQUEST ENGINEERING INC
224.98
13.63ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
13.63
55.33POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
55.33
359.10PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESREINDERS INC
359.10
9,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWREISENGER, JAMES
9,000.00
58.94WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREMAX
58.94
257.08GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERESTORATION AUTO GLASS NEW BRI
257.08
1,365.87WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
1,365.87
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSERUSSELL, DAVID
30.00
220.55OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
304.72HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
619.09HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,144.36
3,355.75TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENTSANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
3,355.75
181.69INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
181.69
174.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIT TOWING INC
174.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSESCHOENIKE, EVERETT
30.00
2,016.51SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
2,016.51
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSENEFELDER, TRAVIS
2,500.00
1,207.92BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
1,207.92
1,319.20EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,319.20
1,940.14ESCROWSGENERALSMEDBERG, STEVEN
1,940.14
575.00OPERATIONSTRAININGSOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY TRAI
575.00
180.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSOUZEK, JULIE
180.00
1,150.00SSD #6 G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESPARKLE WASH
1,150.00
9.17PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
9.17
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,015.35PE DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
2,234.24PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,249.59
250.00POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATST PAUL, CITY OF
250.00
129.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
129.27
106.36WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTORFER, LEON
106.36
111.15POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
339.95ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
451.10
300.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
488.75REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
788.75
160.16ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
183.04GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL NOTICES
343.20
627.71WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTADDIKEN, DAVID
627.71
22.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
22.00
74.56BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
74.55WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
149.11
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTHAEMERT & ERLETA SARI, MELISS
2,500.00
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSETHOMPSON, ANDREW
30.00
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
283.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
283.75
552.59WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTITLE NEXUS LLC
552.59
2,095.52ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESTKDA
2,095.52
64.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
64.13
177.01GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
177.01
29.84WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTVM DEVELOPMENT 1 LLC
29.84
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEUDSTRAND, PAUL
30.00
2,440.24ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEUHL CO INC
2,440.24
267.75SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
40.61RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
286.01COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
594.37
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
309.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
309.00
17,265.66TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
17,265.66
1,255.61VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
1,255.61
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEWANGENSTEEN, DAVID
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
30.00
224.55WESTWOOD G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
2,986.50-SOLID WASTE G&A MISC REVENUE
4,166.34SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
58,768.58SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
24,558.18SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
28,699.65SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
24,016.38SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
137,447.18
30.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A MISC EXPENSEWASYLKIW, CRAIG
30.00
382.61CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
382.61
155.24GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESWAYTEK
155.24
120.00SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
120.00
228.36WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWIFFLER, AMY
228.36
170.49VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWIPERS & WIPES INC
170.49
500.12ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
500.12
1,000.00ESCROWSINGLEWOOD AVE - WOLSONWOLSON, ELLIOT
1,000.00
11,583.26FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.47OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
27,166.62PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,288.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
20.26BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
47.72WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
496.21WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
11/30/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:49:11R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
11/25/2011 -11/12/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
343.37GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
27,983.87WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,779.53REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,132.73SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
75,864.39
17,983.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
17,983.59
128.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESZEP MFG
128.80
294.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
294.13
Report Totals 1,145,144.34
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 4k)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
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 - Off-Sale Liquor License – Tina, Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Tina,
Inc., dba St. Louis Park Liquor located at 6316 Minnetonka Boulevard with the license term
through March 1, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Tina, Inc?
BACKGROUND:
The City received an application from Tina, Inc. for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license
operating at 6316 Minnetonka Boulevard. The St. Louis Park Liquor Store is currently owned
by Lua Nguyen since 2000 who is selling the establishment to Tina, Inc. The premises consists
of approximately 1,200 square feet. Tina Kim Nguyen will be the sole owner, and the business
trade name and store manager will remain the same.
The Police Department has run a full background investigation and has found no reason to deny
the license for the new ownership based on the investigation. The application and Police report
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Council members wish to review the
information prior to the public hearing. The required notice of the public hearing was published
November 24, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Fees for this applicant include $500 for a new license investigation fee and a $380 off-sale
license fee (pro-rated).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 5, 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:
2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Information will be presented at the meeting pertaining to the 2012 property tax supported
budgets, 2012 General Property Tax Levy, and other general tax information. After the
presentation, the Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close the
public hearing. There is no other formal action required at this meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• The City annually holds a Truth in Taxation Public Hearing to solicit public input on the
budget and property tax levy for the following fiscal year. Current legislation allows a
city to hold the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing, adopt the Final General Property Tax
Levy and 2012 Budget on the same evening. The City of St. Louis Park has chosen not
to adopt the budget and tax levy the same evening, but rather wait until the subsequent
regular City Council scheduled for December 19, 2011. This will allow for any
additional public process to occur and also allow the Council time to analyze any input
received at the hearing from December 5, 2011.
• What is the final property tax levy the City Council desires to approve for 2012 at its
December 19, 2011 meeting? At this time staff is recommending a 4.7% levy increase.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the 2012 Proposed Budget, Preliminary General Property Tax Levy and
HRA Levy at its September 6, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, the City Council proposed to set
the 2012 Preliminary General Property Tax Levy at $23,830,726, which is an increase of
$1,134,798, or approximately a 5.00% increase from the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy. The
City Council and EDA also adopted a 2012 Preliminary HRA Levy of $983,574, which is
$45,314, or approximately a 4.40% decrease from the 2011 Final HRA Levy of $1,028,888. By
law, this levy can only be used for infrastructure, housing and redevelopment purposes.
City Council has reviewed and discussed the 2012 Proposed Budget, property tax implications, the
2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and utility rates over the course of the year. The
Preliminary 2012 General Property Tax Levy increase is currently set at 5.00%. Formal adoption of
the 2011 Revised Budget, 2012 Budget, 2012 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, 2012
Utility Rates, and the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for December 19, 2011.
The breakdown of the 5% Preliminary Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart. It
is important to note that a significant portion of the total levy increase is related to debt service on the
fire station bonds:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 2
2011 2012 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Levy Preliminary From 2011 From 2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172 $20,129,798 $65,650 0.33%
Less: Market Value Homestead Loss (667,539)- 667,539 -100.00%
Park Improvement Fund 1,519,000 810,000 (709,000) -46.68%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 438,300 100,000 29.56%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 315,000 (100,000) -24.10%
Debt Service 996,995 1,929,629 932,634 93.54%
To be determined - 207,999 207,999 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,695,928 $23,830,726 $1,134,798 5.00%
* Subject to further consideration by the City Council. This number may decrease.
Additional Preliminary Levy Information:
• A 5.00% or $1,134,798 increase from the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy compared to the
2012 Preliminary Property Tax Levy is assumed in the numbers above.
• Park Improvement Fund levy allocation decreased by $709,000 due to improved long
term sustainability and reallocated to help offset the increase in debt service requirements
for the fire station bonds.
• The debt service levy increased by $932,634 from 2011 for issuance of fire station bonds.
• Capital Replacement and Pavement Management Funds levy allocations were increased
and decreased by $100,000 respectively, to aid in achieving long term sustainability.
A 5.00% levy increase allows $177,975 for funding two other items as discussed on November 14th:
• Provide funding for a Recreation Study: Set aside an estimated $25,000 for use of
consultants to assist, if needed, with a feasibility study or other analysis/expenditures.
• Tree watering: contracting out the newly planted tree watering estimated at $15,000
annually.
After funding the two items above, there would be $137,975 to allocate to the Employee Benefits
Fund, which needs a direct funding source and is used for city wide operations in the benefit area
including tuition reimbursement, workers compensation and accrued leave. This would help to
alleviate some of the cash challenges in the fund.
At the November 14th meeting, several council members wanted detail on the state of the
Employee Benefits Fund before making any determinations. Attachment 1 is an excerpt from
the Long Range Financial Management Plan and analyzes the Employee Benefit Fund. As
shown, the fund has a cash deficit potentially beginning in 2012. Based on current assumptions,
it then has a projected cash deficit of approximately $4.57 million by the end of 2021. It is going
to be the recommendation of staff at the December 19, 2011 Regular City Council meeting to
make a one-time transfer of available funds from the General Fund to the Employee Benefits
Fund to address the projected cash shortfall in 2012. But without a dedicated revenue stream,
this fund will continue to have cash challenges. Therefore, if council chooses to allocate the
remaining $137,975 of property tax revenue to the Employee Benefit Fund, and continues to do
so each subsequent year, it will still result in a projected cash deficit of approximately $2.91
million by the end of 2021. This amount is in addition to the one-time 2012 property tax revenue
infusion of $30,024 to help offset the potential increase in health insurance costs in 2013. The
City Council is not without options though: In 2010, the City Council chose to move forward
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 3
with franchise fee increases to take effect in 2011 to assist the Pavement Management Fund and
try to lessen the infusion of property tax dollars. Further, Council stated they would like to
revisit franchise fee adjustments every other year, meaning analysis will occur in 2012 for
possible adjustment to take effect in 2013. If Council chooses this approach, it would potentially
allow less property tax revenues to be allocated to the Pavement Management Fund and those
revenues could then be reallocated to the Employee Benefits Fund. Depending on the City
Council’s decision on the remaining $137,975 of property tax dollars for the 2012 Property Tax
Levy and their decision on the franchise fees in 2012, the Employee Benefit Fund could be in
much more stable position for the long term.
Options on the levy are as follows:
• If the City Council chooses to incorporate all the items from above that total $177,975,
the property tax levy would remain at an increase of 5.00% when compared to 2011.
• Adding $70,000 of property tax revenue to the Employee Benefit Fund would result in a
levy increase of 4.70%. (staff recommendation)
• If Council chooses to incorporate only the Recreation Study and tree watering from
above, the levy could be reduced from 5.00% to 4.39%.
• Finally, if Council chooses to eliminate funding for the Recreation Study and tree
watering, the levy increase would be 4.22%.
Attachment 2 outlines a summary of revenues and expenditures for the General and Park and
Recreation Funds that reflects the current 5% levy increase as adopted for the 2012 Preliminary
Levy on September 6th.
The Council may choose to fund in any amount they desire up to $177,975, but cannot exceed
that amount unless first making changes to other portions of the 2012 Preliminary Budget.
Attachments 3 – 6 illustrate the estimated City share of property taxes at varying price points on
residential homesteaded properties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park’s property tax levy helps support the operations of the General, Parks
and Recreation, Park Improvement, Capital Replacement, Pavement Management, and
Employee Benefits Funds. In addition, the levy covers the debt service requirements on General
Obligation bonds.
Staff Recommendation on 2012 Final Property Tax Levies:
2012 City Property Tax Levy:
Based on multiple analyses of many funds, it is the recommendation of staff to set the 2012 Final
City Property Tax Levy at $23,762,751, which is an increase of $1,066,823, or approximately
4.70% compared to 2011. This would allow for balanced budgets in the General and Park and
Recreation Funds, continued funding for the Park Improvement, Capital Replacement, Payment
Management and Debt Service Funds as proposed in the 2012 Preliminary Property Tax Levy
adopted on September 6, 2011. In addition, the 2012 levy amount will allow for funding for a
recreation study, tree watering, and a one-time property tax levy to the Employee Benefits Fund
for the potential increase in health insurance costs in 2013, as directed by the City Council on
November 14, 2011. Finally, this will allow $70,000 to be directed to the Employee Benefit
Fund to assist in working toward solving the cash challenges in the fund as outlined earlier in the
report. The progression of the proposed property tax levy allocation is shown in the chart below:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 4
2011 2012 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Levy Preliminary From 2011 From 2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172 $20,169,798 $75,626 0.38%
Less: Market Value Homestead Loss (667,539)- 667,539 -100.00%
Park Improvement Fund 1,519,000 810,000 (709,000) -46.68%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 438,300 100,000 29.56%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 315,000 (100,000) -24.10%
Debt Service 996,995 1,929,629 932,634 93.54%
Employee Benefit Fund - 100,024 100,024 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,695,928 $23,762,751 $1,066,823 4.70%
Examples of Property Tax Levy Adjustments on Residential Homesteaded Properties:
• 5.00% Increase As Adopted In The Preliminary Levy - The estimated impact on the City
share of property taxes, based on a 5% levy increase, differs widely based on the value
of a residential homesteaded property as discussed at the study session on October 10th
and November 14th. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of about
$20 per year, or approximately 3.0%, while other property owners could see an increase
of about $130 per year, or approximately 4.0%. The City’s share of the estimated 2012
preliminary property tax decrease would occur in more affordable residential
homesteaded properties below approximately $193,000, while the increase in the
estimated City share of the 2012 preliminary property taxes would occur in residential
homesteaded properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are only for the
estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other taxing jurisdictions.
• 4.70% Increase As Compared To The 2011 Final Levy - (Recommended per Staff) – If
the City Council chooses to use $110,000 of the discretionary property tax revenues,
meaning an additional $70,000 for the Employee Benefit Fund, $25,000 for the
Recreation Study, $15,000 for tree watering discussed earlier, then the levy increase
would be approximately 4.70%. For example, some property owners would see a
decrease of about $21 per year, or approximately 3.2%, while other property owners
could see an increase of about $121 per year, or approximately 3.7%. Again, the City’s
share of the estimated 2012 preliminary property tax decrease would still occur in more
affordable residential homesteaded properties below approximately $193,000, while the
increase in the estimated City share of the 2012 preliminary property taxes would occur
in residential homesteaded properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are
only for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other taxing
jurisdictions.
• 4.39% Increase As Compared To The 2011 Final Levy – If the City Council chooses to
use $40,000 of the discretionary property tax revenues, meaning $25,000 for the
Recreation Study and $15,000 for tree watering discussed earlier, then the levy increase
would be approximately 4.39%. For example, some property owners would see a
decrease of about $23 per year, or approximately 3.5%, while other property owners
could see an increase of about $111 per year, or approximately 3.4%. Again, the City’s
share of the estimated 2012 preliminary property tax decrease would still occur in more
affordable residential homesteaded properties below approximately $193,000, while the
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 5
increase in the estimated City share of the 2012 preliminary property taxes would occur
in residential homesteaded properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are
only for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other taxing
jurisdictions.
• 4.22% Increase As Compared To The 2011 Final Levy – If the City Council chooses to
not use any of the discretionary property tax revenues discussed earlier, then the levy
increase would be 4.22%. For example, some property owners would see a decrease of
about $23 per year, or approximately 3.6%, while other property owners could see an
increase of about $106 per year, or approximately 3.3%. Again, the City’s share of the
estimated 2012 preliminary property tax decrease would still occur in more affordable
residential homesteaded properties below approximately $193,000, while the increase in
the estimated City share of the 2012 preliminary property taxes would occur in
residential homesteaded properties over approximately $193,000. These figures are only
for the estimated City share and do not factor in any change in other taxing jurisdictions.
Total Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2012 for Taxes and Utilities
Based on the information stated above, using a City share levy increase ranging from 4.22% -
5.00% and realizing that there are many variables in estimating the City impact on a residential
homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $220,100 for
taxes payable in 2012 and having typical utilities would experience an annual increase ranging
from approximately $40.79 - $47.41, or about $3.40 - $3.95 per month. In this range of
estimated increases, approximately $35.43 would be attributed to utility rate adjustments per
year, and approximately $5.36 - $11.98 per year would be applicable to the 4.22% - 5.00% levy
increase range.
2012 Final HRA Levy:
Based on the Long Range Financial Management Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan, it is
suggested that the 2012 Final HRA Levy be set at the maximum amount per law of $983,574,
which is approximately 4.40% less than the 2011 Final HRA Levy of $1,028,888.
OTHER:
As of November 30th, there were no letters or formal requests received in Administrative
Services addressing the proposed increase in the city portion of their property taxes to consider.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision, including strategic directions, were used in preparing the budget documents.
Attachments: 1 – Employee Benefits Fund Analysis – Long Range Fin. Mgmt. Plan
2 – Summary of Revenues/Expenditures – Gen. and Park and Rec. Fund
3 – Estimated City Share of Property Tax Levy – 5.00%
4 – Estimated City Share of Property Tax Levy – 4.70%
5 – Estimated City Share of Property Tax Levy – 4.39%
6 – Estimated City Share of Property Tax Levy – 4.22%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
12/01/2011
City of St. Louis Park
Financial Management Plan
Updated December 5, 2011
Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Budgeted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Cash Inflows
Interest Income -$ 16,157$ (5,157)$ (21,299)$ (37,670)$ (54,884)$ (73,183)$ (92,617)$ (113,239)$ (135,104)$ (158,269)$
Property Taxes - - - - - - - - - - -
Misc/Other 59,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - - - -
Transfers In
General Fund - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Cash Inflows 59,000 76,157 54,843 38,701 22,330 5,116 (13,183) (32,617) (53,239) (75,104) (98,269)
Cash Outflows
Public Safety Disabilitant Ins 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 13,000$
Self Ins Costs- Sedgwick 90,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
HOM Claims 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Unemployment 75,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
General Professional Services 51,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000
Tuition Reimbursement 55,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Estimated Cash Outflows
Flex Payout to VEBA 41,000 45,000 49,000 53,000 57,000 61,000 65,000 69,000 73,000 77,000 81,000
Retiree Payouts 91,486 245,000 108,150 111,395 114,736 118,178 121,724 125,375 129,137 133,011 137,001
Other Separations (non-retiree)20,536 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 92,241 95,008 97,858
Total Cash Outflows 467,022$ 609,000$ 458,400$ 447,962$ 452,691$ 462,592$ 472,669$ 482,929$ 493,377$ 504,019$ 514,859$
Net Change in Cash (408,022) (532,843) (403,557) (409,261) (430,361) (457,476) (485,853) (515,547) (546,617) (579,123) (613,128)
Cash Balance- Beginning 811,937 403,915 (128,928) (532,486) (941,747) (1,372,108) (1,829,584) (2,315,436) (2,830,983) (3,377,600) (3,956,722)
Cash Balance - Ending 403,915 (128,928) (532,486) (941,747) (1,372,108) (1,829,584) (2,315,436) (2,830,983) (3,377,600) (3,956,722) (4,569,850)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b)
Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Actuals Adopted Requested Change 2011-12
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,063,990$ 15,426,072$ 15,998,292$ 572,220 3.71%
Licenses and Permits 2,359,094 2,345,910 2,368,799 22,889 0.98%
Intergovernmental 1,576,222 1,136,187 1,163,677 27,490 2.42%
Charges for Services 1,243,976 1,152,642 1,270,354 117,713 10.21%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 401,554 328,200 328,150 (50) -0.02%
Investment Earnings 105,927 200,000 125,000 (75,000) -37.50%
Miscellaneous Revenue 40,285 104,900 115,100 10,200 9.72%
Transfers In 2,588,235 2,589,876 2,023,003 (566,874) -21.89%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,379,281$ 23,283,787$ 23,392,375$ 108,588 0.47%
Appropriations 22,393,730$ 23,283,787$ 23,392,375$ 108,587 0.47%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 985,551$ (0)$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 170,945 4.27%
Licenses and Permits 622 6,600 6,600 - 0.00%
Intergovernmental 89,631 77,652 68,902 (8,750) -11.27%
Charges for Services 1,022,344 1,095,249 1,070,750 (24,499) -2.24%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 56 - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings 1,349 - - - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 974,562 952,400 980,050 27,650 2.90%
Transfers In 42,384 - 30,000 30,000 0.00%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,145,820$ 6,132,462$ 6,327,808$ 195,346 3.19%
Appropriations 6,063,029$ 6,132,462$ 6,327,808$ 195,346 3.19%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 82,791$ 0$ (0)$
Grand Totals:29,525,101$ 29,416,249$ 29,720,183$ 303,933$ 1.03%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPENDITURES:(0)$
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 7
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
and Activity Actual Adopted Requested Change 2011-12
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,433,480$ 1,542,570$ 1,680,166$ 137,596 8.92%
Communications & Marketing 241,464 294,470 265,426 (29,044) -9.86%
Community Outreach 81,531 88,515 8,185 (80,330) -90.75%
Information Resources 1,384,231 1,394,226 1,507,579 113,353 8.13%
Accounting/Assessing 1,050,898 1,113,106 1,159,532 46,426 4.17%
Community Development 1,019,115 1,094,186 1,076,376 (17,810) -1.63%
Facilities Maintenance 952,859 1,114,550 1,083,128 (31,422) -2.82%
Total General Government 6,163,578 6,641,622 6,780,392 138,769 2.09%
Public Safety:
Police 6,986,667 7,208,512 7,273,723 65,211 0.90%
Fire Protection 2,989,548 3,164,344 3,346,931 182,588 5.77%
Inspectional Services 1,729,152 1,863,296 1,889,340 26,044 1.40%
Total Public Safety 11,705,367 12,236,152 12,509,994 273,843 2.24%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 872,845 829,698 389,783 (439,915) -53.02%
Engineering 798,240 846,031 927,337 81,306 9.61%
Operations 2,575,146 2,550,285 2,604,870 54,585 2.14%
Total Public Works 4,246,231 4,226,014 3,921,989 (304,025) -7.19%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,171,301 1,239,230 1,305,747 66,518 5.37%
Recreation Center 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,466,246 23,799 1.65%
Park Maintenance 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,461,645 26,271 1.83%
Westwood 488,259 502,366 515,456 13,091 2.61%
Environment 366,889 371,325 390,009 18,684 5.03%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,258,156 1,141,721 1,188,705 46,983 4.12%
Total Park & Recreation 6,063,029 6,132,462 6,327,808 195,346 3.19%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 278,554 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 278,554 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total General & Park Funds 28,456,759$ 29,416,250$ 29,720,183$ 303,933 1.03%
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
5.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 11-14-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.543 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 545.24 564.81 545.24 -19.57 -3.0%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 788.49 797.17 788.49 -8.69 -1.0%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 923.02 911.03 923.02 11.98 1.2%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,282.42 1,261.90 1,282.42 20.52 1.6%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,533.11 1,494.27 1,533.11 38.84 2.6%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,796.22 1,726.64 1,796.22 69.58 4.0%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,254.38 2,163.80 2,254.38 90.58 4.2%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,812.28 2,704.75 2,812.28 107.53 4.0%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,375.87 3,245.70 3,375.87 130.17 4.0%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
* Tax Capacity Rate includes the HRA Levy
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 9
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.70% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 12-05-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.418 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 543.74 564.81 543.74 -21.06 -3.2%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 786.32 797.17 786.32 -10.85 -1.3%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 920.48 911.03 920.48 9.45 1.0%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,278.90 1,261.90 1,278.90 17.00 1.3%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,528.91 1,494.27 1,528.91 34.64 2.3%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,791.29 1,726.64 1,791.29 64.65 3.7%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,248.19 2,163.80 2,248.19 84.39 3.9%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,804.56 2,704.75 2,804.56 99.81 3.7%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,366.61 3,245.70 3,366.61 120.91 3.7%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
* Tax Capacity Rate includes the HRA Levy
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.39% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 12-05-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.290 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 542.21 564.81 542.21 -22.60 -3.5%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 784.11 797.17 784.11 -13.07 -1.5%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 917.89 911.03 917.89 6.86 0.7%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,275.30 1,261.90 1,275.30 13.39 1.0%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,524.60 1,494.27 1,524.60 30.33 2.0%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,786.24 1,726.64 1,786.24 59.60 3.4%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,241.86 2,163.80 2,241.86 78.05 3.6%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,796.66 2,704.75 2,796.66 91.91 3.4%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,357.12 3,245.70 3,357.12 111.42 3.4%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
* Tax Capacity Rate includes the HRA Levy
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 11
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.22% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
As of 11-14-11
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points will not experience these exact changes.
Property Value Mkt. Val. Mkt. Value Taxable Taxable Tax Capacity 43.276 45.216 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Homestead Total Home.Market Market 2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
City Credit Exclusion Value 2011 Value 2012 2011 2012
150,000 144,000 (84.33) (24,280.00) 150,000.00 119,720.00 1,500 1,197 649.14 541.33 564.81 541.33 -23.48 -3.6%
200,000 193,000 (68.35) (19,870.00) 200,000.00 173,130.00 2,000 1,731 865.52 782.82 797.17 782.82 -14.35 -1.7%
224,500 220,100 (60.51) (17,431.00) 224,500.00 202,669.00 2,245 2,027 971.55 916.39 911.03 916.39 5.36 0.6%
300,000 292,500 (36.38) (10,915.00) 300,000.00 281,585.00 3,000 2,816 1,298.28 1,273.21 1,261.90 1,273.21 11.31 0.9%
350,000 343,000 (20.39) (6,370.00) 350,000.00 336,630.00 3,500 3,366 1,514.66 1,522.11 1,494.27 1,522.11 27.84 1.8%
400,000 396,000 (4.40) (1,600.00) 400,000.00 394,400.00 4,000 3,944 1,731.04 1,783.32 1,726.64 1,783.32 56.68 3.3%
500,000 495,000 - - 500,000.00 495,000.00 5,000 4,950 2,163.80 2,238.19 2,163.80 2,238.19 74.39 3.4%
600,000 594,000 - - 600,000.00 594,000.00 6,250 6,175 2,704.75 2,792.09 2,704.75 2,792.09 87.34 3.2%
700,000 693,000 - - 700,000.00 693,000.00 7,500 7,413 3,245.70 3,351.64 3,245.70 3,351.64 105.94 3.3%
Assumptions:
2011 and 2012 tax capacity rate based on Hennepin County information.
Tax capacity rates increase from 1% to 1.25% for values over $500,000.
* Tax Capacity Rate includes the HRA Levy
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 2012 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 12
Meeting Date: December 5, 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:
Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Major Amendment to the PUD for Park Village
Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Do the proposed modifications to the Park Village Center meet the original intent and purpose of
the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), as well as the criteria for a PUD
under the Zoning Ordinance?
Does the City Council wish to approve the major amendment to the PUD for Park Village?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Village site at 5200 Excelsior Boulevard,
located at the northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. The PUD site includes several
restaurant buildings and the Mann Theater. It is immediately to the southwest of the Park Nicollet Clinic
campus.
The PUD amendment would allow for construction of a new 6,600 square foot retail/restaurant
building along Excelsior Boulevard, conversion of the entire first floor of the existing theater
building to retail use, elimination of all theater use on the site, modifications to the site and
parking layout south of the theater building, and changes to the McDonald’s site including a
small building and drive-through expansion.
The analysis and review of the proposed site modifications will be discussed separately below to
allow for a thorough review of both the Frauenshuh theater re-use plan and the McDonald’s site
improvements, as follows:
1. Theater Redevelopment
2. McDonald’s Site Modifications
The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its November 2nd, 2011 meeting. There
was one resident present to comment on the proposal. The comments received reflected current
concerns about the site, including landscaping and noise and lighting related to the Granite City
restaurant. Staff is monitoring those concerns. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the application, subject to conditions that have been included in the attached
resolution.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
PUD Site Details:
Site Details
Site size 222,169 square feet, or 5.1 acres
Zoning + Comprehensive
Plan Designation
Zoning: C-2 General Commercial
Comprehensive Plan: Commercial
Site buildings Five buildings:
• Granite City Restaurant (7,250 square feet + outdoor patio)
• Mann Theater Building
• Mann Theater (Two levels, six screens, 1,438 seats)
• Chipotle Restaurant (3,000 square feet)
• Village Hair (921 square feet)
• Breugger’s Bagels Restaurant (2,932 square feet)
• Caribou Coffee / Boston Market (4,693 square feet)
• McDonald’s Restaurant w/ drive-through (4,282 square feet)
Proposed building • 6,600 square feet restaurant building
Site History:
The PUD site was redeveloped in the 1990s. With the exception of some restaurant turnover,
businesses on the site have been relatively stable since that time. The site owner, Frauenshuh
Companies, is proposing the first major changes to the site since it was redeveloped. The Park
Village site includes a shared parking agreement with Park Nicollet Clinic, located immediately
to the north; though not part of the site for purposes of the major proposed site plan changes, this
parking is counted toward the overall parking availability for the businesses on the site.
With technological and other changes in the movie theater industry, the Mann Theater on the site
is considering closing this theater. The developer is proposing to reuse the existing building.
The existing businesses on the first floor, including Chipotle, Village Hair, and Breugger’s,
would relocate to the new 6,600 square foot building. The developer would then redevelop the
entire first floor of the theater building for an alternative retail user. The retail user has not yet
been identified, as the developer continues to explore concepts for the building.
The developer investigated various options for reuse of the second floor of the theater building.
Because the building was constructed for stadium seating, the floors are angled. The structural
design of the building does not allow for leveling those floors, limiting the potential future
tenants of the second floor to users in need of auditorium-type space. Because of the challenges
in finding such a tenant, the developer has determined that it is more practical at this time to
leave the second floor space unused.
Should the developer pursue an alternate plan in the future that involves the demolition of the
theater building and construction of a new building in its place, the proposal would be evaluated
by Staff for compliance with the PUD approvals. The minimum level of required City Council
review would involve a Minor Amendment to the PUD approvals; however, depending on the
scope of site changes, it is possible that an additional Major Amendment to the PUD could be
required.
The McDonald’s site is under separate ownership from the rest of the restaurant complex, but is
part of the original PUD. Concurrent with the Frauenshuh plans for changes to the theater
building, McDonald’s plans to make modifications to its site to improve traffic flow and to
update the building and drive-through to be more in line with current McDonald’s business
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
practices. The largest changes include adding a second drive-through ordering location and
closing one of the entrances into the McDonald’s parking lot. Both changes will serve to
improve the flow of traffic through the McDonald’s site, and to reduce the potential for backups
into the primary drive aisle of the combined PUD site. The design changes are discussed in
greater detail below.
Analysis and review of the proposed site modifications will be separated to allow for a thorough
review of both the Frauenshuh theater re-use plan and the McDonald’s site improvements.
1. Theater Redevelopment:
The theater site includes the Granite City building, the current Mann Theater building, which
includes Chipotle, Village Hair, and Breugger’s, and the Boston Market / Caribou Coffee
building. McDonald’s is analyzed separately later in the report. Modifications to the site would
occur predominately to the south of the existing buildings.
Site Layout
The proposed changes to the site include a new 6,600 square foot building and a re-orientation of
the parking area south of the theater. The new building would be located along Excelsior
Boulevard, almost directly south of the theater building. To maximize available parking on the
site, the parking area south of the theater would be re-oriented from north-south to east-west.
Changing the parking improves the opportunity for installation of pedestrian safety measures,
including crosswalks and protected medians. Placing a new building in the existing parking lot
necessitates a loss of available parking spaces, discussed below under Parking.
The businesses currently in the theater building, including Chipotle, Village Hair, and
Breugger’s, would vacate their existing space in the first floor of the theater building and move
to the new building along Excelsior Boulevard. The theater space would also be vacated. The
upper level of the building would be left vacant; the lower level would be transformed for a new
retail tenant. The retail tenant would take the entire first floor of the theater building. The retail
tenant has not yet been identified by the applicant. The City’s Building Official has prepared a
memo discussing the complexities relating to leaving a large portion of a building vacant. It is
attached for review.
In addition to the major change in use for the theater building, the developer also anticipates
modifying the entrance location. The Mann Theater entrance is on the building’s northeast
corner, allowing patrons easy access from the shared parking area with Park Nicollet. With the
elimination of the existing restaurant/retail space from the front of the building, the developer
anticipates moving the primary entrance serving the new retail tenant to the south side of the
building.
The proposed 6,600 square foot building would be oriented toward the north, with the primary
building entrance facing the parking lot and away from Excelsior Boulevard. The south side of
the building, which faces Excelsior Boulevard, would be used for deliveries and refuse removal.
There would be no outside storage of supplies or refuse. A refuse containment room is proposed
at the southwest corner of the building, which would be opened only for placement and removal
of refuse, including garbage and recycling.
Traffic Analysis
The proposed plans for the new building along Excelsior Boulevard were shared with the County
Engineer for review. Excelsior Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The
County Engineer has communicated to City Staff that the proposed building would not have a
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
major impact on traffic around the area. The intersection of Excelsior Boulevard, Wooddale
Avenue, and Highway 100 was re-coordinated several years ago to improve its operation. It
remains a busy intersection. However, because of the relatively small scope of the 6,600 square foot
building, the new development is not expected to change the overall amount of traffic in the area.
Vehicle flow within the Park Village site was reviewed in light of the changes to the parking lot.
The new east-west orientation of the parking lot will allow vehicles to more effectively travel
within the site to their ultimate destination.
Parking
Parking calculations were done for the entire PUD area, including the McDonald’s site. Parking
on the site would be reduced with this proposal. The exhibits submitted include a detailed
description of current and proposed parking. To the south of the theater building, there are
currently 309 spaces. With the proposed modifications to the site, including the new building
and the changes at McDonald’s, there would be 240 spaces, a reduction of 69 spaces. There are
383 spaces to the north of the site in the Park Nicollet parking lot, all available after 3:30 PM
each day, by an agreement between the property owners.
For the current uses on the site, the Zoning Ordinance requirement for off-street parking is 734
spaces. The bulk of this requirement is for the theater, for which 360 spaces are required. With
the elimination of the theater building and substitution of retail space, and the construction of the
new building along Excelsior, the total requirement for the site is 447 spaces.
Park Village PUD – Parking Requirement
Use Size Parking Requirement -
Current
Parking Requirement -
Proposed
Granite City 7,250 SF 121 spaces (1 per 60 SF) 121 spaces (1 per 60 SF)
McDonald’s 4,282 SF 72 spaces (1 per 60 SF) 72 spaces (1 per 60 SF)
Caribou/Boston Mkt 4,693 SF 78 spaces (1 per 60 SF) 78 spaces (1 per 60 SF)
Mann Cinema 1,438 seats 360 spaces (1 per 4 seats)
Bruegger’s/Chipotle 5,932 SF 99 spaces (1 per 60 SF)
Village Hair (retail) 921 SF 4 spaces
6,600 SF restaurant building 6,600 SF 110 spaces (1 per 60 SF)
Retail (theater building) 16,500 SF 66 spaces
Total 734 spaces 447 spaces
Despite the reduction in available parking in the south parking lot, the off-street parking
requirement is still met through the use of shared parking. Information provided by the applicant
shows that the future peak parking demand for the uses on the site will occur between 5:00 PM
and 7:00 PM, which allows for the use of the shared parking area. The smaller lunchtime peak
does not currently require use of all the spaces to south.
Park Village PUD – Parking Availability
Location Current Spaces Available Proposed Spaces Available
South of theater building 234 spaces 192 spaces
McDonald’s 75 spaces 48 spaces
North of theater building 383 spaces 383 spaces
Total 691 spaces 623 spaces
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Forty-five bicycle parking spaces are required. A condition requiring bicycle parking is included
in the recommendations. Some proof of bicycle parking space is acceptable; the condition
requires a minimum of 20 bicycle parking spaces be installed as part of the current proposal.
This would consist of 10 U-shaped bicycle racks located in suitable locations throughout the site.
The remainder of the bicycle parking spaces could be added as needed.
Landscaping Plan
Construction of the proposed building along Excelsior Boulevard would result in improvements
to the overall landscaping on the site. At the present time, the landscape plan for the site is based
on the approved Official Exhibits associated with the existing Planned Unit Development
approval. The site is in compliance with those plans. The new building frees up some additional
space for new landscaping, and would result in the installation of 18 new trees and 39 new
shrubs. The trees and shrubs would primarily be located around the new building; however, in
the portion of the parking lot to be reconstructed, new landscape islands would be added to allow
for additional trees within the parking lot. Any trees that have been lost due to age, disease, or
predation since the PUD site was originally developed would also be reviewed and replaced.
The proposed building includes two new outdoor patios. The patios would serve as outdoor
seating locations for Chipotle and Breugger’s. The outdoor seating areas are depicted on the
plans, and would feature stamped concrete under a trellis. The patios would be focused inward
to the site and would not be located along Excelsior Boulevard.
Sidewalk connections
The proposed site changes show improved pedestrian connections through the site. Crosswalks
would be provided through the large surface parking lot, connecting the proposed building along
Excelsior Boulevard to the theater building. The applicant has also proposed constructing a new
sidewalk and crosswalk to the north and east of the Boston Market building (depicted on the
Overall Site Plan, Sheet C2-2), to better connect the restaurants within the PUD to the Park
Nicollet campus. At the present time, many of the Park Nicollet employees attempting to walk
to the PUD site must walk in vehicle drive aisles.
During the Planning Commission meeting, a Commissioner raised the issue of sidewalk
connections between the building entrances within the PUD site and the shared parking area to
the north, particularly those that can be used to reach Granite City. While there is a sidewalk in
place along the west side of the theater building for that purpose, it is utilitarian and may be
challenging for some users due to evening light levels and the delivery activities taking place in
that location. Staff will continue to work with the developer to improve the level of access to the
shared parking, and to improve the viability of sidewalk connections within the site.
The proposed 6,600 square foot building along Excelsior Boulevard features sidewalks around
each side of the building and a connection to Excelsior Boulevard to the east. There is no
sidewalk connection proposed to the west. Staff is recommending the addition of a sidewalk
from the proposed building to the west, as there is a bus stop along Excelsior Boulevard in this
location that could only otherwise be reached by users via a walk up the adjacent grassy hill.
That condition has been included in the resolution.
Building Materials
There are no changes to the existing buildings on the site that would materially impact the
materials used. The proposed building along Excelsior Boulevard would feature brick and glass.
The entrances to that building would be oriented toward the north, facing the parking lot, with
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
the back of the buildings facing Excelsior, which relates to the orientation of the existing
buildings and better allows for shared parking between the uses. The developer has proposed the
use of spandrel glass on the south side to improve the visual presence of the building along
Excelsior Boulevard.
Stormwater Management
The landscape plan includes the details for a rain garden to the east of the proposed building. A
full review of stormwater management for the site was completed by the Project Engineer and by
the City Engineer. Stormwater for the site is currently managed in two underground storage
areas. The addition of the above-ground rain garden would enhance the quality of water leaving
the site and would bring the overall PUD area into full compliance with the City’s current
stormwater management regulations.
2. McDonald’s Site Modifications:
The changes at the McDonald’s site are driven primarily by the need to modify the drive-through
operations to match the business practices in other locations throughout the McDonald’s
franchise. The changes would add an additional ordering lane at the drive-through. There are
also changes to the building, including removal of the mansard roof, a minor expansion to the
interior dining area, and a minor expansion to the building’s cold storage capacity.
A narrative from the applicant discussing the proposed changes is attached.
Site Layout
In addition to the changes to the building a drive-through operation, the applicant is proposing to
modify the way traffic moves through the site. At the present time there are two ingress/egress
points to the south of the restaurant. The proposal would eliminate the south ingress/egress,
because it occasionally results in drive-through traffic backing up into the primary drive aisle
located west of the McDonald’s site. All traffic entering the McDonald’s site would be directed
to turn right; the ingress point would be separated from the egress by a concrete median. Vehicle
traffic would proceed through the one-way parking area. The modification allows for additional
space for vehicle queuing within the McDonald’s site, and streamlines parking lot flow. Exiting
from the drive-through would remain the same, while parking lot users would exit from a single
point to the north of the entrance. These changes will improve the on-site traffic flow, reduce the
on-site pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, and reduce the congestion on the drive aisle between
McDonald’s and Boston Market.
The vehicle queuing provided within the McDonald’s site meets the code requirements for a
drive-through service use.
Changes to the parking lot layout and entry points would allow for installation of additional
landscaping to the site. The applicant is proposing the installation of two new trees and 83 new
shrubs. The proposed landscaping plan is attached.
Parking
The proposal to modify the drive-through operation would result in the loss of off-street parking.
The applicant addresses this issue in the narrative. Forty eight spaces would remain on the site,
with overflow parking available in the Park Nicollet lot to the north. The McDonald’s parking
area is included in the overall parking analysis for the PUD, discussed above. Reducing the
parking on site is not expected to have an impact, as the restaurant operations do not utilize the
parking that is currently provided, and many spaces are left unused. In addition, the easier
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
queuing for the drive-through is expected to moderately increase customer demand for the drive-
through and further reduce the need for parking on the site.
Sidewalk connections
The applicant is proposing the addition of crosswalks at the entry and exit south of the building.
Additional sidewalk along the east side of the site would also be added to improve pedestrian
accessibility from Excelsior Boulevard. The new crosswalks would create other options for
pedestrians with the intent of eliminating the need to cross the street in front of the drive-through
exit lane.
Summary:
The Major Amendment to the PUD conforms to the intent of the original planning studies
completed for the Park Commons area and the approved Final PUD. Though the proposal
reduces available off-street parking over the entire PUD, the site will continue to have sufficient
parking availability during times of peak demand to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Based on a review of the development proposal, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Major Amendment to the existing Park Village PUD.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The continued investment and redevelopment of the Park Village Center meets the City’s Vision
goals for gathering places, providing important contact points where people can meet and fully
experience the City’s many amenities.
Attachments: Resolution – PUD Amendment
Unofficial Minutes – November 2nd, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
McDonald’s Applicant Narrative
Memo from John Tilton, City Building Official
Site Plans and Related Documents – Theater area
Site Plans and Related Documents – McDonald’s area
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11-033 APPROVED ON
MARCH 7, 2011 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 14:6-7 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED “O”
OFFICE, C-2 COMMERCIAL AND R-C HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF
EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 100
Amends and Restates Resolution 11-033
Major amendment to allow for site modifications, construction of a new 6,600 square foot
building along Excelsior Boulevard, and improvements to the McDonald’s building
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on April 5, 1993 from the applicants, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary PUD was mailed to all owners
of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the
vicinity, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary PUD Plan was published in the
St. Louis Park Sailor on May 5, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary PUD concept at the
meeting of May 5, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of May
17, 1993 and continued the hearing until June 2, 1993 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD
on a 6-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final PUD at the meeting of
November 1, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final PUD on a 6-
0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision,
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 93-183 approving the PUD was approved by the City
Council on November 15, 1993; and
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
WHEREAS, an application for an amendment for a PUD was received on July 26, 1994,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 94-103 approving an amendment to the PUD was approved
by the City Council on August 1, 1994, and
WHEREAS, an application for an amendment for a PUD was received on November 22,
1994, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 94-180 approving an amendment to the PUD was approved
by the City Council on December 5, 1994, and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2002, Frauenshuh Companies filed an application seeking a
major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Tower Place to allow a change
in an approved use from a retail use to a restaurant use, and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 6-1 recommended approval
of the major amendment to the PUD, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits, and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005, Granite City Food and Brewery, Ltd. filed an
application seeking a minor amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Tower
Place to allow modifications to the exterior of the structure, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits,
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005, Granite City Food and Brewery, Ltd. filed an
application seeking a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Tower
Place to allow structural alterations at 5500 Excelsior Blvd., and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing,
received testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 6-0 recommended
approval of the major amendment to the PUD, and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2011, Granite City Food and Brewery filed an application
seeking a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for Tower Place to
allow for the expansion of an outdoor patio at 5300 Excelsior Boulevard, and
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing,
reviewed the application, and on a vote of 4-0 recommended approval of the major amendment
to the PUD,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits,
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2011, Park Village LLC and McDonald’s USA, LLC
filed an application seeking a major amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for
Tower Place to allow for site modifications, construction of a new 6,600 square foot building
along Excelsior Boulevard, and improvements to the McDonald’s building at 5200 Excelsior
Boulevard, and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing,
reviewed the application, and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the major amendment
to the PUD,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed
amendment including comments and exhibits,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
Recitals
The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made part of this resolution.
Findings
1. Frauenshuh Companies has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 14:6-7 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the “O”
Office, C-2 Commercial and R-C High Density Multiple Family Residence Districts
located at the northeast quadrant of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100 for the legal
description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Tower Place
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 93-18-PUD) and the effect of the proposed Final PUD and
amendments thereto on the health, safety, or general welfare of the occupants of the
surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of
properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that approval of a Final PUD and the proposed
amendments thereto will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has determined that the proposed Final PUD and amendments
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
thereto are in harmony with the general provisions, purpose and intent of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications
comply with the requirements of Section 14:6-7.2(E).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 93-18-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
Conditions and Approval
A Final PUD at the location described in paragraph 1 of the above findings is approved based on
the recitals and findings set forth above, the Approved Final Plans, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the roadway improvement plans submitted as part of the Indirect Source
Permit application by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Hennepin
County Department of Transportation.
2. Approval by the City and execution of a development agreement between the City and
Frauenshuh Companies which identifies responsibilities of each relating to the project.
3. Recording of the final plat of Tower Place by Hennepin County.
4. The Contract for Private Development between the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) and Frauenshuh Companies is incorporated herein by reference. City Council
intent is to implement both the Contract for Private Redevelopment and the development
agreement and give effect to all provisions of each, including but not limited to the
EDA’s right to review and approve Construction Plans as provided in Section 9.2 of said
Contract for Private Development.
5. The approval of this Final PUD applies only to those elements listed as Phase I
improvements on Exhibit A – Master Plan Phase I to be completed by Frauenshuh
Companies on Lots 6 and 7 and the right-of-way adjacent thereto up to the curb of the
adjacent road. This condition is subject to the limitation that the total square footage of
the retail and theater development shall not exceed the lesser of 47,200 square feet or the
square footage allocated to this development in the Indirect Source Permit as may be
amended from time to time.
6. The City reserves the right to require the applicant to install a pedestrian access from any
bus stop to be located on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard west of Park Nicollet
Boulevard to the development site.
7. Development of Lots 6-7 Tower Place and improvements on adjacent right-of-way up to
the curb of the adjacent road shall be in accordance with the following exhibits:
Exhibit A – Site Layout (Sheets C2.3)
(Amended by Condition No. 11 approved 8-19-02)
Exhibit B – Site Utilities (Sheets C3.3)
Exhibit C – Site Grading (Sheets C4.3)
Exhibit D – Site Planting (Sheet L2.3)
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Exhibit E – Site Lighting (Sheet E1)
Exhibit F – Building Elevations (Sheets A2.00R, A.202R, A2.03R, A2.04R)
(Amended by Condition No. 11 approved 8-19-02)
The Site Layout (Exhibit A) is approved with the condition that vehicles leaving the site
from the driveway on Park Center Boulevard shall be prohibited from making left turns
to south bound Park Center Boulevard. The Development Agreement shall make
provision for on-going monitoring of the need for the left turn prohibition and removal of
the left turn prohibition if such monitoring indicates the prohibition is unnecessary.
The Site Layout is based on the assumption the driveway on Excelsior Boulevard will
allow both ingress to and egress from the site. The Floor Plans on Exhibit F are
illustrative in nature and are subject to modification without amending this resolution.
(Amended by Condition No. 8 approved 8-1-94)
(Amended by Conditions 9 and 10 approved 12-5-94)
8. Condition number 7, Exhibit F is amended to delete Building Elevation Sheet A.202R
and replace it with Building Elevation Sheet A-2
(Amended by Condition No. 9 approved 12-5-94)
9. Condition number 8, Exhibit F is amended to delete Building Elevation Sheet A-2 and
replace it with Building Elevations Sheet A-11 dated November 10, 1994.
10. Condition number 7, Exhibits A through D, is amended by deleting sheets C2.3, C3.3,
C4.3 and L2.3 and replacing them with Sheets C2.1, C3.1, C4.1 and Planting Plan, all
dated November 16, 1994. These exhibits are modified by Exhibit G, McDonalds
Driveway Plan.
11. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 02-36-PUD) on August 19, 2002 to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions to allow a change in 3,500 sq. ft. of tenant
space from retail to restaurant without intoxicating liquor (Chipotle) and add the
following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with the official
exhibits (Exhibits A Site Layout and F Building Elevations shall be submitted), in
the form of an as-built survey with proposed changes shown and shall be revised
prior to signing the exhibits to meet the following conditions for the outdoor
seating area on the southwest corner of the theater/mixed use building:
1. The outdoor seating area must provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk that is kept
free of temporary and permanent obstruction. Such sidewalk must be 6
feet from and parallel to the building (or continue in a straight line from
the sidewalk to the east).
2. The outdoor seating area cannot be enclosed with a fence.
3. A maximum of two existing handicap parking stalls may be removed to
accommodate the outdoor seating area.
4. The size of outdoor seating area cannot be more than 10% of the indoor
restaurant area.
b. Official exhibits as revised per condition 11a. and updated to show as-built conditions
on the overall site must be signed by the applicant and owner prior to issuance of a
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
building permit. Such exhibits shall show the approved uses of this development to
include: 7,000 square feet as restaurant with intoxicating liquor, 3,400 sq. ft as
restaurants without intoxicating liquor and/or food service, retail/service, 3,800 sq. ft.
as restaurant with in-vehicle sales/service, and in the Theater/Mixed use building
26,000 sq. ft. for a theater, 900 sq. ft for retail/service, and 5,900 sq. ft for retail or
restaurant without intoxicating liquor.
c. Required building, plumbing, electrical and other required permits shall be obtained
from the City. Such permits may impose additional conditions.
d. All required improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new restaurant without intoxicating liquor, including:
1. Interior improvements in accordance with permit approval.
2. Compliance with Accessibility Code requirements.
3. Exterior exhaust chase must comply with the MN State Building Code.
e. Prior to installation of any new signs the applicant shall obtain sign permits.
f. The applicant is responsible for the installation of the on-site regulation signage as
recommended by SRF.
12. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 05-75-PUD) on February 6, 2006 to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions to allow modifications to the exterior of the
building at 5500 Excelsior Blvd. and add the following conditions:
a. The exterior of the building at 5500 Excelsior Blvd. shall be modified as shown
on Sheet A200 of the official exhibits.
b. Required permits for construction and installation of signs shall be obtained from
the City. Such permits may impose additional conditions.
c. Any modifications to the building footprint shall require a Major Amendment to
the Tower Place PUD.
13. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 05-76-PUD) on February 21, 2006
toincorporate all of the preceding conditions to allow structural alterations to the building
at 5500 Excelsior Blvd. and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits.
b. No dining shall take place in the area planned for a brewery.
14. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 11-02-PUD) on March 7, 2011 to incorporate
all of the preceding conditions to allow for expansion of an outdoor patio at 5300
Excelsior Blvd. and add the following conditions:
a. Prior to use of the patio, the landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the
recommendations of the City’s Environmental Coordinator.
b. All necessary permits must be obtained.
c. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted and
approved by the City’s Environmental Coordinator. Required tree protection and
erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities.
15. The final PUD shall be amended (Case No. 11-24-PUD) on December 5, 2011 to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions to allow for site modifications, construction of
a new 6,600 square foot building along Excelsior Boulevard, and improvements to the
McDonald’s building at 5200 Excelsior Boulevard and add the following conditions:
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits as referenced herein.
b. The PUD approval allows for modifications to the parking and drive-aisle layout,
expansion of the drive-through at McDonald’s, and construction of a new 6,600
square foot building along Excelsior Boulevard.
c. The PUD approval allows for modifications to the total parking available on the
site. Following construction of all proposed improvements, a total of 256 spaces
will be located to the south of the buildings; and a total of 383 shared parking
spaces will be located in a parking lot to the north of the buildings, owned and
shared by Park Nicollet.
d. The developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter
of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail
installation, repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree replacement/
landscaping.
e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to incorporate a
sidewalk, stairs, or other means of direct access to the existing sidewalk along
Excelsior Boulevard immediately to the west of the proposed new 6,600 square
foot retail building.
f. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Zoning Administrator shall
review the original conditions of approval for the entire PUD site. In order to
obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall ensure compliance with all
previous PUD conditions, including site plan requirements pertaining to
landscaping.
g. A total of 45 bicycle parking spaces are required. Bicycle parking may be
provided internally and externally. Proof of bicycle parking is acceptable for
outdoor bicycle parking, but a minimum of 20 outdoor bicycle parking spaces
must be provided.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 2, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A. Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Location: 5200 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Park Village LLC and Reprise Design
Case No.: 11-24-PUD
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained the request is for a major
amendment to the Park Village Center Planned Unit Development for a new restaurant
building, overall site modifications within the PUD, and modifications to the McDonald’s
site. The PUD encompasses Granite City, the Mann Theater building which has a
number of restaurants on the south side, a Boston Market and Caribou Coffee building,
and a McDonald’s building.
Mr. Fulton discussed the two access points to the PUD site. He spoke about the shared
parking agreement with Park Nicollet.
Commissioner Robertson asked how new signage will work with the overall allowed
signage for the PUD.
Mr. Fulton responded that signage is regulated on a site with multiple tenants based on
the frontage of the buildings. The applicant is proposing a new monument sign. Signage
plans are typically approved outside of PUD approval.
Commissioner Carper asked if there are sidewalks adjacent to the west side of the Mann
Theater and on the east side of Granite City that would facilitate movement to the back
parking lot.
Mr. Fulton said there is currently a sidewalk on the west side of the theater building
which is service oriented. The primary north-south pedestrian sidewalk is to the east
side.
Commissioner Carper described evening rush hours at Granite City when the lot in front
of the restaurant is full and begins to move out to the east. With the loss of 56 parking
spaces, he said he would think there will be more pressure north of the Granite City
building. He said he was concerned about adequate pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Fulton said that concern will be raised with the applicant. The Planning Commission
could elect to add that as a condition of the recommendation.
Commissioner Carper asked about deliveries for the new building.
Mr. Fulton said the applicant could address that question.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Commissioner Carper asked if there would be a passageway on the east side of the
McDonald’s building which would allow traffic to flow freely adjacent to the ordering
lanes.
Mr. Fulton responded that was correct. He said it is expected there will be sufficient
circulation space at that location. He added there wouldn’t be an option to exit via the
drive-thru area.
Commissioner Person asked about pedestrian access to McDonald’s from the north.
Mr. Fulton said staff discussed this with the applicant and the City Engineer. He
indicated where pedestrian options will be added.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that McDonald’s will be
adding new sidewalk to the north of their building. She said that improvement will help
pedestrians and lead people away from crossing at the drive-thru exit.
Commissioner Kramer asked about potential uses of the theater upper floor and how that
would affect parking. He asked about issues related to having a vacant building in the
area.
Mr. Fulton said the upper floor of the theater building would be required to be fully
secured, closed off and not accessible. The upper floor has no windows. The applicant
has stated it doesn’t have a practical re-use if it isn’t a theater and flattening out the
sloped floors isn’t practical either. The most practical use for the building itself would be
to fully re-use the first with the second floor remaining vacant.
Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects, said no specific tenant for the theater
building has been identified at this time. The second floor couldn’t be used for
warehousing or storage of any kind due to floor loads and the structure of the building.
Deliveries wouldn’t be any more intense than they are currently at the site. If deliveries
were made during business hours they would occur off to the side.
Mr. Sperides spoke about Granite City parking. He said the intent of the developer of the
theater building is to keep Granite City’s parking as whole as it is currently.
Mr. Sperides said they propose to have the sidewalk connect to the east side of the
building as the grade change on the west side of the building is significant. The east side
sidewalk would also bring pedestrians to the landscaped area.
Brian Johnson, Reprise Design, architect for the McDonald’s building, spoke about the
truck service vehicle. He said it would come in from the south. Goods are conveyored
into the building close to the entrance. Going out, the truck template works so the truck
can continue forward and circulate all the way around the parking lot and out the same
wide entrance they entered, heading north. The truck driver could also back out the way
they came in. Typically services arrive at McDonalds at 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m.
Mr. Johnson stated that pedestrian traffic from the north will be directed around the
intersection to bring pedestrians to the west side to cross the street.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
Sonja Almlie, 3924 Webster Ave. S., said her property faces directly toward Granite City.
She said she is one of the few residents on the west side of Hwy. 100 who was notified of
the proposed changes.
Ms. Almlie stated that when the original development was done by Frauenshuh and Park
Nicollet there quite a few issues with the original plan about the design of several
buildings and facilities as well as the landscaping in the area. Ms. Almlie stated she had
grave concerns regarding landscaping because trees have died and have not been
replaced. They’ve either been cut down or left dead. There is significant landscaping
that has not been replaced. She said when the original plan for landscaping came in it
was sub-code or substandard to what the city had required in the plan. When residents
started asking questions it was identified that it didn’t meet city standards and so
significant changes had to be made and there were some accommodations to reduce it.
Ms. Almlie said she is very excited about the new plan for additional greenery in that
area but she is also concerned as the existing landscaping along Granite City and Park
Center Blvd. is substandard.
Ms. Almlie said the lighting fixture on the west side of Granite City brings very high
luminescence to her side of the roadway, is very obvious and quite a deterrent to the
community. What concerns her about suggestions of changes on all of these properties is
increased luminescence. She said there is also a challenge with noise from garbage pick-
up at Granite City during times of less noise in the area. She’s concerned that the theater
property might have a restaurant or retail with a high degree of garbage and delivery
service. If there are more services at 3 and 4 in the morning towards Hwy. 100 there is
likely to be noise and problems there.
Ms. Almlie said when the original development was proposed there was concern about
lighting at Park Nicollet ramps with high luminescence that would affect the
neighborhood. Changes were made. She stated that other neighborhoods may have
concerns as well. The access to the theater building concerns her as there isn’t a
walkway designed between the theater building and the Granite City Brewery. There are
some challenges for people transferring through the different areas of the development.
Commissioner Kramer asked Ms. Almlie where her house is located.
Ms. Almlie responded that it is five houses north of the former Pawn America site.
Commissioner Kramer asked when Ms. Almlie could hear noise over Hwy. 100 traffic.
Ms. Almlie responded at about 3 and 4:00 in the morning the neighborhood can hear
garbage pick-ups in the development as Hwy. 100 traffic is light at that time.
Commissioner Kramer asked how the development lighting stands out from Highway
100 lighting.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Ms. Almlie said the location of the light, direction of the light and type of lighting
towards the homes makes it stand out. It is very visible light as it does not have a cover
over it to focus light down.
Ms. McMonigal said staff will look into all of the issues.
The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Person asked if landscaping on the plans was existing landscaping or
proposed landscaping.
Mr. Fulton said there is new landscaping associated with the proposal. He added that
staff will review the existing landscape plan for the site and make sure that any trees that
have died will be replaced and the site is in compliance with the approved landscaping
plan.
Commissioner Person asked if Granite City would be adding any signage.
Mr. Fulton said he didn’t believe any new signage was proposed for Granite City as part
of the current application.
Commissioner Person asked about ordinances regarding delivery time.
Mr. Fulton responded under a PUD or Conditional Use Permit there is the ability to
include that as a condition. Generally, the City has some noise standards that are different
for evening and daylight hours.
Commissioner Robertson said overall he likes the proposal. He remarked that comments
about it have been very clear. Information about landscaping and lighting was very eye
opening and he recommends that it be included in the conditions that all existing
landscaping be brought up to compliance. All existing and new lighting should be
brought into compliance. He remarked it is a tough site and it’s very clear that a lot of
work has been done to make it work as well as it seems to work, and it has to be done
carefully.
Commissioner Morris spoke about notification of the public hearing. He said he assumed
a 350 ft. radius notification was done, but the site is pretty sheltered in its commercial
nature. He suggested being more diligent in the future about notifying neighborhood
associations surrounding these types of developments. He commented that the Planning
Commission may want to include expanding notification areas as an agenda item in the
future.
Chair Johnston-Madison remarked that because Ms. Almlie’s neighborhood is elevated
well above Hwy. 100, the impact from noise in the development does carry forward to
that neighborhood.
Ms. McMonigal commented that staff will review compliance with original approvals on
the site. Additional landscaping can be added through the PUD amendment. Staff can
check on the lighting.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD
Commissioner Kramer stated the design is good. He said the comments from the resident
should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Carper stated it’s a nice development being added to the site. He said he
is still concerned about the pedestrian access.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major
Amendment to the PUD subject to conditions included by staff and subject to review of
existing conditions on the site meeting original approvals. Commissioner Kramer
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff will review the comments that came up at the public
hearing, will respond to the citizen who brought up issues, and will address the issues in
the staff report and City Council meeting.
Commissioner Robertson suggested expanding the notification list for the City Council
meeting.
St. Louis Park Planned Unit Development Narrative
McDonald’s Restaurant
5200 Excelsior Boulevard
Under McDonald’s national rebranding program the restaurant is being substantially
remodeled. The program dramatically reimages the exterior appearance, refreshes the
interior décor, updates any deficiencies in site and building accessibility, and improves
operational characteristics relative to menu item changes, product delivery, and client
service.
Records indicate that drive through traffic volume have increased disproportionately with
overall sales at the location. At the time the existing drive through configuration was put
in place, the volume was in the neighborhood of 45% of total sales. Current volume is
63.8% and is expected to increase another 5% upon installation of new branding elements
and application of the standard McDonald’s side by side ordering configuration.
We are seeking an amendment to add an additional drive-thru menu board to our current
drive-thru configuration and the modifications to the parking lot necessary to
accommodate said second menu board. These changes are to allow our site to
accommodate the anticipated increase in drive-thru traffic on our site without negatively
impacting the traffic conditions and area parking.
These proposed changes shall have no effect on the Comprehensive Plan or the health,
safety and welfare of occupants of surrounding lands as we are not changing the use of
the property.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 20
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 6, 2010
To: Adam Fulton – Planner
From: John Tilton – Building Official
Re: Park Village Center, 5200 Excelsior Blvd - Major Amendment to the Park Village PUD
I have reviewed the plans included with your September 21, 2011 memo requesting staff comments
regarding the following PUD amendments being proposed at Park Village Center.
• A new retail tenant in the first floor of the Mann Theater Building. The existing first floor tenants
would be relocated, so the new tenant would take the entire first floor. The second floor would be
mothballed.
• A new 6,600 square foot restaurant building at the SW corner of the site.
• Modifications to the McDonald’s building and site.
The plans provided do not contain sufficient information or details to perform an in-depth plan review.
Therefore, full code compliance cannot be determined until a complete set of construction plans for each
building have been submitted for review and approval. However, based on the limited information
contained in the plans submitted the following comments are provided:
General Comments:
1. The architectural plans submitted at the time of Building Permit application for the each building
must be prepared, stamped and signed by an architect licensed by the State of Minnesota.
2. The structural, electrical, plumbing and/or mechanical plans submitted at the time of permit
application for each building must be prepared, stamped and signed by an engineer, or engineer’s,
licensed by the State of Minnesota.
3. Compliance with Minnesota State Accessibility Code requirements for the buildings and the site
will be determined as part of the plan review and Building Permit application review process.
4. A Code Compliance Analysis must be provided by the Architect on the plans for each building at
the time of permit application. This analysis must provide sufficient information, details and
calculations to verify that the proposed building height, building area, type of construction, fire
resistive rating, occupant load, exiting, parking, plumbing fixtures, etc… indicated in the plans
complies with Minnesota State Building Code requirements.
5. Additional plan review comments will be provided as necessary after City staff has had an
opportunity to review a complete set of construction plans for compliance with the requirements
contained in the Minnesota State Building Code, Minnesota State Fire Code, Minnesota State
Health Code, St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance, and other pertinent laws, rules and regulations.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 21
Mann Theater Building:
6. Further discussions with the property owner and the architect must be held regarding the
“Mothballing” of the second floor to determine exactly what this means. Code compliant access
and exiting requirements will be determined based on the new occupancy classification
established for the second floor. Additionally, the automatic fire sprinkler system must be
maintained on the second floor in order for the building to qualify under the “sprinkler
throughout” provisions contained in the Minnesota State Building Code. Heat must be provided
for the second floor to protect the fire sprinkler system from freezing, or the sprinkler system on
the second floor must be replaced with (or converted to) a code compliant dry fire sprinkler
system.
New 6,600 SF building:
7. The memo requesting staff comment refers to the new 6,600 SF building as a restaurant building.
However, the plans provided consistently refer to it as a “Retail Building”. Restaurants are
classified as Group A-2 Occupancy, and retail uses are classified as a Group M Occupancy. Both
of these occupancy classifications have different requirements under the Minnesota State
Building Code. The intended use, or uses, within this building must be clearly identified in the
set of construction plans submitted for plan review with the Building Permit application.
8. Plan Sheet C4-1. The plan indicates a single 6-inch water service to the building. Separate
domestic and fire water services are required for the building unless the engineer can provide
calculations to verify that the proposed single 6-inch water service can provide a enough water
volume to meet the full fire sprinkler design load, and the full domestic water design load, for the
building at the same time without the use of a solenoid valve to divert the flow of water.
9. Plan Sheet C4-1. Verify the percentage of slope indicated for the installation of the 6 inch PVC
sanitary sewer pipe running from the sanitary manhole located in the parking lot south of
McDonalds to its termination point approximately 5 feet east of the northeast corner of the
building. The change in these invert elevations is only 1.06 feet. At 0.4% the slope of the 6 inch
sewer pipe is less than 1/16th per foot. Minnesota State Plumbing Code Section 4715.2400
requires that a 6 inch horizontal drainage pipe must have a minimum slope of 1/8 inch per foot.
McDonalds:
10. Based on the plans provided the proposed changes to the McDonalds building appear to be very
minor. Additional plan review comments may be provided at the time of building plan review as
part of the Building Permit Application process.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD Page 22
4200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROADSUITE 220BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437PH: 952.996.9662FX: 952.996.9663WWW.SRARCHITECTSINC.COMPERSPECTIVESPARK VILLAGE RETAIL1North Corner Perspective2West Corner Perspective
4200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROADSUITE 220BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437PH: 952.996.9662FX: 952.996.9663WWW.SRARCHITECTSINC.COMEXCELSIOR BOULEVARD PERSPECTIVESPARK VILLAGE RETAILEXISTING EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD PERSPECTIVEPROPOSED EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD PERSPECTIVE
Meeting Date: December 5, 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:
Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to change
the zoning of 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
General Commercial (C-2), and set the second reading for December 19, 2011.
• Motion to Adopt Resolutions approving a Conditional Use Permit for a motor vehicle service
use with a carwash and a Variance to the distance requirement between a carwash and an
adjacent residential property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support rezoning the site at 3901 Excelsior Boulevard from C-1 to C-2, paired
with a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance, in order to allow for renovations to the existing
motor vehicle service station and construction of a new carwash?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a rezoning to change the site’s zoning from C-1 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to
allow motor vehicle service with a carwash, and a Variance to reduce the distance requirement
between the carwash and an adjacent residential property. The rezoning must be approved in
order for the CUP and Variance to be considered, because carwashes are not permitted in the C-1
district. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and
France Avenue, both of which are County Roads.
The Staff report provides a brief background of the proposal and then discusses each
request/issue as follows:
1. Amendment to the Official Zoning Map (C-1 to C-2).
2. Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle service with a carwash.
3. Variance to the requirement that carwashes be a minimum of 100 feet from residential
properties.
4. Additional approvals needed to proceed.
Site History and Project Background:
The site at 3901 Excelsior Boulevard has been a gasoline and
service station since 1926, based on records from the St.
Louis Park Historical Society. It was originally a PURE
Station, pictured at right in 1952.
The current owner and applicant sought and obtained
approval for conversion of the existing building into a
carwash in 2006. At that time, the Planning Commission and
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Council determined that the conversion was an acceptable re-use of the building under the
restrictions of the existing Special Permit. The applicant did not go forward with construction of
that project.
In 2009, the applicant approached the City to discuss a new proposal. The applicant had
acquired the parking lot immediately to the west, and proposed expanding the service station by
adding an attached carwash to the west of the existing building. As the site plan was developed,
several issues were identified, including an existing sanitary sewer pipe and an existing storm
sewer pipe, both of which cross the property. Those issues resulted in further discussion and
study of the site, with new applications prepared for 2011. Because the property owner acquired
an additional site and new property cannot be added into an existing Special Permit, the applicant
has submitted the current applications to construct a carwash that would meet the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance, including the proposed variance.
The site features a City of St. Louis Park entrance monument, located immediately adjacent to
the Excelsior/France intersection. The City holds an easement for the entrance monument. The
applicant is not proposing any changes to the monument itself or the landscaping surrounding the
monument, and modifications to the area immediately behind the monument, including a portion
of the site’s off-street parking, would not be modified as part of this proposal.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on November 2nd, 2011.
Following the Staff presentation, the applicant also completed a presentation about the proposed
carwash. One resident was present to comment, and was neutral in regard to the proposal. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the three applications.
1. Proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map for 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard
Comprehensive Plan: COM – Commercial
Current Zoning: C-1 – Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed Zoning: C-2 – General Commercial
The applicant is requesting that the Zoning Classification for the subject properties be amended
from “C-1 Neighborhood Commercial” to “C-2 General Commercial.” A table is attached
comparing the uses allowed in the C-1 and C-2 districts. Performance standards for the site
would change as follows:
Performance Standards C-1 C-2
Height 35 feet (3 floors) 75 feet (six floors)
Setbacks
Front 5 feet 5 feet
Side (abutting street) 15 feet 15 feet
Side None – Unless adjacent
to residential
None – Unless
adjacent to residential
Rear 20 feet None – Unless
adjacent to residential
Screening Required adjacent to
residential
Required adjacent to
residential
Max. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 2.0
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
The largest difference between the C-1 district and the C-2 district are the uses allowed (see
attached table); however, height standards and the maximum permitted building size (floor area
ratio) are also different.
The triangular site is at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. For
purposes of determining the setback requirements, the front yard of the site is along Excelsior
Boulevard, and France Avenue is a side yard abutting a street. The west property line is the
site’s rear yard.
Purpose of Request:
The zoning change is required to allow the applicant to move forward with construction of a
carwash expansion to the existing service station. The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district
does not allow carwashes.
Is the requested zoning change supported by the City’s Comprehensive Plan?
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map guides the site for commercial activity under the
COM-Commercial category. The COM category does not distinguish between neighborhood
and general commercial activity, and allows for either C-1 or C-2 zoning. The plan states:
“The Commercial land use category is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of
commercial uses, such as retail, service, entertainment, and office. Commercial uses can
range from small neighborhood convenience nodes, to community retail areas along major
roadways, to large shopping centers, to auto-related commercial uses along freeways…”
The Comprehensive Plan guidance allows for a greater intensity of use on the site, particularly in
light of its location at the intersection of two major roadways within the City. Both Excelsior
Boulevard and France Avenue are County Roads. Should the building and site be upgraded as
part of the proposed carwash expansion, it could also come into greater compliance with
Comprehensive Plan goals for high quality design standards, minimizing the adverse impacts
associated with commercial activity, and improving pedestrian access to and within
neighborhood commercial nodes.
What are the potential impacts to the neighborhood due to the zoning change?
The proposed zoning change may result in a higher level of activity on the Minikahda Mobile
site. Adding a drive-through carwash to the existing service center would provide a new type of
service to the neighborhood and drivers along Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, which
may slightly increase the number of vehicular trips to and from the site.
The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district allows lower intensity uses in comparison to the C-2
General Commercial District. Though the size of the site would limit the opportunities for future
use, there are a greater variety of uses allowed in the C-2 district. Were the site fully
redeveloped at some time in the future, that development could be at a higher intensity under C-2
than under C-1. However, building height and mass would be limited by the site’s small size,
finding space for required off-street parking, and installing stormwater management
infrastructure.
Does the proposed amendment impact the physical character of the neighborhood?
The proposed carwash addition would be similar in scale to the present uses in the area and could
improve aesthetics and revitalize the site in the near-term. Over a longer timeframe, the
proposed amendment may impact the physical character of the neighborhood by allowing more
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
and taller development on the site, if the service station and proposed car wash were ever
redeveloped.
What input is available from the neighborhood?
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in 2009. Neighborhood feedback from that meeting
was generally supportive of the proposed carwash, although a zoning change was not proposed at
that time. The service station provides automotive repair for many neighborhood residents, and
neighbors have stated that it is a valued service.
Several neighbors have provided written comments regarding the proposal. Those comments are
attached for review; one comment is in opposition to the proposal, while the others are in favor.
Included is a letter in support of the project from Scott Bader, developer of the Ellipse project to
the north of the Minikahda Mobile site. There was one resident present at the Planning
Commission public hearing, and he was neutral in regard to the proposed changes to the site.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from C-1 to
C-2. Rezonings are approved by Ordinance, which requires two readings. The second reading
of the Ordinance is scheduled for December 19th; the rezoning would be effective 15 days after
publication of the Ordinance.
2. Proposed Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle service with a carwash
Zoning Details:
Zoning Ordinance
Requirements: Proposed Site Condition:
Proposed use: Motor Vehicle Service with Carwash
Approvals required: Conditional Use Permit
Site size: NA 28,034 square feet (0.64 acres)
Maximum FAR: 2.0 0.17
Front Setback: 5 feet (Excelsior Blvd.) 31 feet
Side Yard 1: 15 feet (France Ave.) 25 feet
Side Yard 2: None (southwest side) 31 feet
Rear Setback: 15 feet (south side) 60 feet
Building height: 75 feet or 6 stories 15 feet, 1 story
Outdoor storage: Prohibited Fully enclosed
Off-street Parking 17 spaces 26 spaces
Site Information:
In the C-2 General Commercial District, motor vehicle service and repair is allowed through a
Conditional Use Permit. As part of the service/repair use, a carwash may also be incorporated,
and the Zoning Ordinance includes four conditions geared specifically toward the construction of
automatic carwashes. The specific conditions for the use are discussed in greater detail below.
The site is a corner lot and is located across the street from the Ellipse on Excelsior development
and the Minikahda Country Club. There are two parcels adjacent to the site. Directly west along
Excelsior Boulevard, there is a commercial parcel with an office building located immediately
adjacent to the service station parking lot. Directly south, there is a two-family residential
property.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
The garage serving the two-family residential parcel and the parking lot south of the adjacent
office building are both accessed via a shared driveway with the existing service station parking
lot. There is a 14-foot easement over the south portion of the parking lot to provide access for
both these properties. The developer has proposed that the easement would be left as-is, with a
slight expansion to the curb cut to allow for improved access to the one-way drive aisle through
the parking lot.
Site Analysis:
Site Layout
The applicant intends to retain the existing service station building and filling station canopy.
Those structures comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for building setbacks; the
motor vehicle service and filling station uses are permitted through a Special Permit. With the
addition of the proposed carwash, the gas station site would be minimally changed. In addition
to the proposed exterior modifications to the building (discussed below), the applicant is
proposing to install new landscaping and to modify the traffic flow through the site.
Carwash Operation
The proposed automatic carwash, to be oriented parallel to the existing service station, would
allow for vehicles to stack on its southeast side, nearest to France Avenue. The Zoning
Ordinance requirement for a minimum of four stacking spaces for vehicles waiting to enter the
carwash can be met and is reflected on the site plan. Vehicles would pass through the carwash
and exit on the Excelsior Boulevard side of the site. Internal circulation around the site and
carwash is available, but limited. Vehicles exiting the carwash will be required to make a right-
only exit onto Excelsior Boulevard, or travel through the site to reach an exit along France
Avenue.
As noted, the CUP requires a minimum of four (4) vehicle stacking spaces for the carwash,
discussed below under “Specific CUP requirements.” The applicant meets the stacking
requirement.
Off-street Parking
The site plan includes 28 proposed off-street parking spaces, with eight of those spaces located at
the gas pumping islands. The Zoning Ordinance has separate requirements for motor vehicle
service bays with an accessory convenience store. The total requirement for the site is 17
parking spaces. Surplus parking spaces on the site may not be utilized for new or used-vehicle
sales.
Two of the proposed parking spaces do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
cannot be counted toward the total. As depicted on the attached site plan, there are several
spaces to the east of the service station and carwash (numbered spaces 12 and 13) that do not
correlate to a drive aisle and may be confusing for customers. Staff will work with the developer
to remove or modify those spaces from the site plan prior to construction.
Although this is a motor vehicle service station, there will still likely be demand for bicycle
parking as customers drop off and pick up vehicles for service. For this reason, and to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, bicycle parking is required on the site. A condition has
been included in the resolution to reflect this requirement.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Site access
The City Engineer and County Engineer have both
reviewed the proposed curb cuts onto the site. Because
both Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue are
County Roads, a right-of-way permit from Hennepin
County will be required to complete the site work.
There are four access points proposed for the site, as
depicted in the graphic to the right. The County
Engineer has recommendations for access points 1 and
3. For access point 1, it is recommended that it be
reconfigured to ensure that eastbound drivers on
Excelsior Boulevard do not enter the site from this
location. Access point 1 serves as an exit-only, as the
drive aisle behind the carwash is proposed as a one-
way.
Access point 3 is complex. At the present time, it is
approximately 30 feet wide with access onto France
Avenue. The site plans show an expansion to 62 feet.
At such a width, the access point could potentially pose
a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles traveling internally to the site. The County Engineer
has requested that the proposed curb cut be modified to match access point 2, which is 30 feet
wide. A condition has been included to reflect this requirement. The full comments from the
County Engineer are attached.
Landscaping & Screening
The proposed site plan includes eight trees and 19 shrubs. The landscape requirement for the site
is for 16 trees and 96 shrubs. The requirement is based on the total lineal feet of the perimeter of
the site, per Section 36-364 of the Zoning Ordinance. The developer has proposed the use of
some alternative landscaping measures, including enhanced screening through the use of
decorative concrete walls along the south side of the carwash, and through the installation of
seating areas adjacent to the site. The applicant provided additional graphics since the Planning
Commission, which are attached for review. The resolution includes requirements pertaining to
submittal of the final landscape plan prior to issuance of the building permit.
The City’s Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the plans and made several suggestions
regarding species choice for the site, given its proximity to two major County Roads and its
projected potential winter salt load. These recommendations have been provided to the
applicant, and a condition has been included to require the proposed plant materials to be
modified prior to construction.
As part of the Conditional Use Permit review, Staff reviewed potential off-site impacts of the use
on the health, safety and welfare of the community. An important concern is proximity of off-
street parking areas to adjacent properties. The proposed off-street parking to the west of the
carwash is located immediately adjacent to the west property line. Though the parking area does
not directly abut the residential property to the south of the site, there are still off-site impacts to
that site. Vehicle headlights from the site are an important concern. These headlights would
impact not only the residential property, but also the office building to the west of the site. At
1
2
3
4
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
the request of the Planning Commission, a condition requiring additional screening is included in
the resolution; the Planning Commission has requested that the applicant work with the adjacent
residential property owner to install trees on that site, if so desired by the property owner. As
reflected on the new drawings provided by the applicant, additional screening would consist of
concrete walls that would be architecturally integrated into the carwash expansion.
Complete screening is required for all utility structures, refuse containers, recycling, used oil,
used tires, rooftop equipment, electric boxes, and electrical utilities. Such screening must be
architecturally integrated and constructed of similar materials as used in the principal structure.
A condition has been added to reflect this recommendation.
Building Materials
The applicant has proposed building materials including stone, stucco and glass to meet the
Zoning Ordinance requirements for Class I materials. The applicant’s stated intent for the
proposed building materials would be to positively complement the design of the Ellipse on
Excelsior building, which is located across the street. The exhibits do not include a high level of
detail for the proposed building materials; for this reason, a condition has been included in the
resolution to ensure that the building that is ultimately constructed on the site meets the City’s
requirement for use of Class I materials.
The renovations to the existing service station building will also be required to comply with the
architectural standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Site Utilities & Stormwater Management
The City Engineer completed a review of the proposed site modifications and utility connections,
detailed in the attached memo. The site has access to sufficient water, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer to serve the carwash expansion.
The site is of a small size and is almost completely covered by impervious surfaces. Landscaping
improvements and other proposed modifications will reduce the amount of impervious surface
on the site. The City Engineer determined that the site changes do not trigger the City’s
stormwater management requirements. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), however, which will likely address required
water quality improvements for runoff from the site. Permits from the MCWD will be required
prior to construction.
As mentioned in the Background section of this report, two major utility mainlines were
identified as issues during the first review of this project in 2009. These include a nine inch
sanitary sewer main that runs to the west of the existing service station (through the recently-
acquired parking lot) and a 36 inch storm sewer main that runs underneath an area between the
existing service station and the gas pump canopy.
The developer has proposed to relocate the sanitary sewer main from its current location on the
property. It would be moved to the west and would remain located below the parking lot. The
City Engineer and Utility Superintendent would coordinate closely with the developer to ensure
the utility is properly relocated.
The storm sewer main was originally part of Hennepin County Ditch #14. This 36 inch pipe is
an outlet from Bass Lake Preserve. It runs under the Minikahda Mobile site and proceeds
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
through the Minikahda Country Club and ultimately connects downstream to Lake Calhoun in
Minneapolis. The City Engineer completed a technical analysis of the existing pipe and
determined that it is structurally sound and can remain in its current location.
A condition of approval has been included to ensure that the revised easements are in place prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Specific CUP Requirements:
Motor vehicle service and repair is only permitted in the C-2 district with a Conditional Use
Permit. Conditions listed under the use relate to off-site noise and odor impacts, traffic impacts,
and distance from residential properties. With one exception, the proposed service station and
carwash meets the conditions for granting the CUP. A variance is requested for the exception,
related to the distance between the carwash and an adjacent residential property.
The proposed carwash is permitted as an accessory use to motor vehicle service and repair, and
has additional conditions that must be met, including:
1. A minimum of four stacking spaces be provided. This requirement is discussed above and is
met, as depicted on the site plan.
2. Drainage and surfacing plans must be reviewed by the Director of Public Works. The City
Engineer reviewed the concept plans and would review any building permit plans to ensure
continued compliance with the requirements, to ensure that the car wash does not cause water
to accumulate on adjacent public streets and that waste water is disposed of properly.
3. The carwash must not exit directly onto a public street. The proposed carwash would have
cars traveling to the north after exiting the carwash; the cars would not be able to enter the
public street until traveling over 150 feet on the site.
4. Adequate off-street parking is available for the service station, convenience store, and
gasoline pumps.
An additional setback requirement within the CUP conditions calls for an automatic carwash to
be located a minimum of 100 feet from any adjacent residential properties. The proposed
carwash entry door would face toward the southeast, and would be located within 60 feet of an
adjacent residential property. The developer has requested a variance to this requirement,
discussed below.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use
Permit, subject to the conditions included in the resolution.
3. Application for a Variance to the requirement for 100 feet of separation between a
residential property and a carwash
The applicant has applied for a Variance related to the location of the proposed carwash. The
Conditional Use Permit requirements state that a carwash entrance that faces a residential
property may not be located within 100 feet of any residential property. The applicant would
like to construct the proposed carwash to within 60 feet of an adjacent residential property.
State law relating to variances was modified during the 2011 Legislative Session. The law
resulted in changes to the criteria for granting variances. The largest change was a shift from the
term and concept of “hardship” to a new standard referred to in statute as “practical difficulty.”
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
A handout from the League of Minnesota Cities further explaining the change in state law is
attached.
Staff is in the process of reviewing the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements for variances in
light of the changes to state law. In the meantime, the existing language of the Zoning
Ordinance has been used to review the applicant’s variance request.
Variance Analysis:
The City may grant variances, provided that the Zoning Ordinance criteria are met. Staff
completed a review of the variance criteria currently found in the Zoning Ordinance and made a
recommendation to the Planning Commission that the variance request be denied. The Planning
Commission reviewed the applicant’s request and recommended that the variance request be
approved, due to additional information provided by the applicant at the Planning Commission
meeting. The minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for review.
The Planning Commission’s review of the variance request found that the Zoning Ordinance
standard of 100 feet between a carwash and an adjacent residential property was not appropriate
for the current proposal, citing the following issues:
• Technology changes in carwash equipment, reducing noise from the use.
• Challenges related to building on the site due to the location of underground stormwater
infrastructure.
• An existing driveway easement on the south side of the site.
• The location of the adjacent homeowner’s garage, which adds a buffer between the
carwash and the house.
Summary:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Variance to allow the carwash to be
located as currently proposed. This allows for a carwash within 60 feet of the adjacent
residential property line. A resolution for approval of the Variance has been included.
4. Additional Approvals Needed
Prior to obtaining a Building Permit, several additional City approvals will be needed, as
follows:
• Plat: The development site includes two separate parcels. These parcels will need to be
combined via a new plat. The proposed carwash would be located immediately west of
the existing service station, and would be located over an existing property line. The City
Attorney has advised that the plat process can follow the development approval process,
but will be necessary prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
• Vacation: The existing easement for the sanitary sewer line will need to be vacated and
replaced by a new easement. The vacation process could be handled concurrently with
the platting process.
• Termination of existing Special Permit: Minikahda Mobile currently operates under a
Special Permit issued prior to adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. Should the
Conditional Use Permit be approved, the City will terminate the existing Special Permit
for the 3901 Excelsior Boulevard site.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
The City approvals listed here have been included as requirements for completion prior to
issuance of a building permit.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Ordinance – Rezoning
Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Resolution – Variance
Unofficial Minutes, November 2nd, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
Existing and Proposed Zoning Map
Letters from Adjacent Property Owners
Table: C-1 versus C-2 uses
Memo from City Engineer
Email from County Engineer
League of Minnesota Cities – Variance Handout
Site Plan and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3901 and 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 11-19-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
3901 Excelsior Boulevard:
Property Description Per Certificate of Title No.: 1052108:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road with the center line of France Avenue as said Road and Avenue are located and
shown on the plat of MENDOZA PARK, thence running Southwesterly along said center line of
said Excelsior Road to a point made by the intersection of said center line of said Road and
center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen Avenue shall be a line
parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and 40 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from Southwesterly line of said Block 15), extended Northwesterly to
make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road; thence running Southeasterly
along said center line of said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the center line of France
Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of said France Avenue to the point of
commencement.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point made by the intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road and the center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen
Avenue shall be a line parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and
40 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Block 15)
extended Westerly to make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road, thence
running Southeasterly along said center line if said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the
center line of France Avenue; thence Southerly along the center line of France Avenue to a point
315.5 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said center line of Excelsior Road with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Northwesterly to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Road 315.5 feet Southwesterly from the intersection of said centerline of said Excelsior Road
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
with the East Line of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Excelsior
Road to the point of beginning.
Subject to easements of the public in France Avenue and Excelsior Road.
3921 Excelsior Boulevard:
Parcel A:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, West of
the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line
of Lot 1, Block 1, HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE, which point is 3 feet Southwesterly as
measured along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, from the Northwest corner thereof; thence
Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, and same extended, a distance 78.3
feet, and which point is actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 190.1 feet; thence East a distance of 48 feet,
more or less, to a point on the West line of France Avenue South, as the same is now laid out and
constructed, which point is 153.2 feet North as measured along the West line of France Avenue
South and the East line of Lot 46, Block 1, of said HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE from
the Southeast corner of said Lot 46; thence North along the West line of said France Avenue
South a distance of 32.55 feet, more or less, to a point on a line, said line being described as
follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center of Excelsior Avenue South with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Southwesterly along the center of said avenue 316.5 feet;
thence Southeasterly at right angles with said avenue 239.35 feet, more or less, to the point of
intersection of said line with the West line of France Avenue, and which point is the point
referred to; thence Northwesterly along said last described line 207.9 feet, more or less, to a
point on the extension Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, Block, 1 HANKE’S MINIKAHDA
TERRACE; thence Southwesterly at right angles and along said extended line a distance of 53
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, excepting, however, therefrom the Northwesterly 17
feet taken for street opening of Excelsior Boulevard.
Subject to easement for driveway purposes as created by deed recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document No. 2647512, and recorded in
1861 of Deeds, page 269.
Subject to a perpetual easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes over that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 52.00 feet Southeasterly of the centerline
of Excelsior Boulevard, recorded as Document No. 6718583, in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 General Commercial.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 11-19-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 13
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading December 5, 2011
Second Reading December 19, 2011
Date of Publication December 29, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect January 11, 2012
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 14
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION
36-194 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO PERMIT MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE WITH A CARWASH FOR
PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT:
3901 AND 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Alberto Bertomeu has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-194 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of renovating a
motor vehicle service station and adding a carwash within a C-2 General Commercial District
located at 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
3901 Excelsior Boulevard:
Property Description Per Certificate of Title No.: 1052108:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road with the center line of France Avenue as said Road and Avenue are located and
shown on the plat of MENDOZA PARK, thence running Southwesterly along said center line of
said Excelsior Road to a point made by the intersection of said center line of said Road and
center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen Avenue shall be a line
parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and 40 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from Southwesterly line of said Block 15), extended Northwesterly to
make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road; thence running Southeasterly
along said center line of said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the center line of France
Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of said France Avenue to the point of
commencement.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point made by the intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road and the center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen
Avenue shall be a line parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and
40 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Block 15)
extended Westerly to make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road, thence
running Southeasterly along said center line if said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the
center line of France Avenue; thence Southerly along the center line of France Avenue to a point
315.5 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said center line of Excelsior Road with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Northwesterly to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Road 315.5 feet Southwesterly from the intersection of said centerline of said Excelsior Road
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 15
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
with the East Line of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Excelsior
Road to the point of beginning.
Subject to easements of the public in France Avenue and Excelsior Road.
3921 Excelsior Boulevard:
Parcel A:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, West of
the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line
of Lot 1, Block 1, HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE, which point is 3 feet Southwesterly as
measured along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, from the Northwest corner thereof; thence
Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, and same extended, a distance 78.3
feet, and which point is actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 190.1 feet; thence East a distance of 48 feet,
more or less, to a point on the West line of France Avenue South, as the same is now laid out and
constructed, which point is 153.2 feet North as measured along the West line of France Avenue
South and the East line of Lot 46, Block 1, of said HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE from
the Southeast corner of said Lot 46; thence North along the West line of said France Avenue
South a distance of 32.55 feet, more or less, to a point on a line, said line being described as
follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center of Excelsior Avenue South with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Southwesterly along the center of said avenue 316.5 feet;
thence Southeasterly at right angles with said avenue 239.35 feet, more or less, to the point of
intersection of said line with the West line of France Avenue, and which point is the point
referred to; thence Northwesterly along said last described line 207.9 feet, more or less, to a
point on the extension Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, Block, 1 HANKE’S MINIKAHDA
TERRACE; thence Southwesterly at right angles and along said extended line a distance of 53
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, excepting, however, therefrom the Northwesterly 17
feet taken for street opening of Excelsior Boulevard.
Subject to easement for driveway purposes as created by deed recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document No. 2647512, and recorded in
1861 of Deeds, page 269.
Subject to a perpetual easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes over that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 52.00 feet Southeasterly of the centerline
of Excelsior Boulevard, recorded as Document No. 6718583, in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 11-20-CUP) and the effect of the proposed motor vehicle service
station and carwash on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the motor vehicle service station and carwash will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 16
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
the proposed motor vehicle service station and carwash is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 11-20-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit a motor vehicle service station and carwash at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits, incorporated by reference herein.
2. The CUP approval allows for renovation of the existing motor vehicle service building
and construction of an attached carwash addition to the west side of the existing building.
3. If the CUP is approved without a variance to the setback requirements for the distance
between a carwash and a residential property, the plans for the carwash must be revised
to meet all setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following issues pertaining to the landscaping
plan shall be addressed:
a. The landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate the recommendations for plant
species provided by the City’s Environmental Coordinator.
b. The landscape plan shall be revised to show all proposed landscape elements,
locations, species and sizes. The plan is required to be prepared by a registered
landscape architect.
c. Alternative landscaping as permitted by Section 36-364 (g) may be used to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A detailed plan of alternative measures,
including screening walls and seating areas, must be submitted and approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
5. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Any required permits shall be obtained, including those from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
b. The site plan shall be revised to include the construction of a minimum of four (4)
bicycle parking spaces.
b. The site plan shall be revised to include an opaque six-foot fence for screening along
the western property line.
c. The site plans shall be revised to depict the location of any utility structures and
refuse or recycling storage areas. Such structures or areas shall be screened using
materials similar in design and quality to the materials used for the principal structure
on the site.
a. The developer must receive approval of the vacation of an existing drainage and
utility easement that would be impacted by the proposed carwash.
b. The developer must receive approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat to combine the
parcels.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 17
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
c. The developer must dedicate any required easements for new or relocated
infrastructure on the site.
d. The developer shall apply to the City Council to terminate the existing Special Use
Permit for 3901 Excelsior Boulevard.
e. The site plans shall be revised to modify the driveway access points on the site per the
requirements of the Staff Report and the County Engineer.
6. The developer shall install a reasonable amount of landscaping screening on the adjacent
residential property, if so desired by the property owner. Any such plan shall be approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The deadline for action by the applicant related to the CUP and Variance approvals shall
be extended from the Zoning Ordinance term of one year from the initial date of approval
to January 1, 2014.
8. The developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation/repair,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and landscaping.
9. Motor vehicle sales of new or used vehicles on the site shall be strictly prohibited. At no
time shall any motor vehicles on the site be displayed or offered for sale, or stored for
anticipated sale on this or any other site.
10. Fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
11. No public address system or outdoor speakers shall be audible from off-site.
12. Test driving of vehicles shall take place on Excelsior Boulevard and shall not occur on
France Avenue.
13. The City Engineer shall review the Building Permit application for potential impacts to
stormwater main pipe running between the service station and the gas pump canopy.
This review may include analysis by an outside structural engineer to insure that the
construction will not result in damage to the stormwater pipe.
14. The entire building, including the remodeled service station, shall meet the Zoning
Ordinance requirements for use of exterior architectural materials. No building permit
shall be issued until the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that the
architectural materials requirements have been satisfied.
15. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall be inside a closed
building except tire inflation, changing wipers or adding oil.
16. The carwash shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of City Code
Section 36-194 (d) (3) (f).
17. Hours of operation for the carwash shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
18. Outdoor storage of any non-operable vehicle shall be limited to no more than 24-hours.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 18
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
19. Overnight outdoor long-term parking for operable vehicles shall be limited to no more
than three (3) consecutive days on the site.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 19
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-194(d)(3) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO CONSTRUCT A CARWASH FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AT 3901 and 3921 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Alberto Bertomeu has applied for a variance from Section 36-194(d)(3) of the Ordinance
Code relating to zoning to construct a carwash for property located in the C-2 General
Commercial Zoning District at the following location, to-wit:
3901 Excelsior Boulevard:
Property Description Per Certificate of Title No.: 1052108:
Parcel 1:
All that part of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road with the center line of France Avenue as said Road and Avenue are located and
shown on the plat of MENDOZA PARK, thence running Southwesterly along said center line of
said Excelsior Road to a point made by the intersection of said center line of said Road and
center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen Avenue shall be a line
parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and 40 feet Southerly,
measured at right angles from Southwesterly line of said Block 15), extended Northwesterly to
make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road; thence running Southeasterly
along said center line of said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the center line of France
Avenue; thence Northerly along the center line of said France Avenue to the point of
commencement.
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point made by the intersection of the center line of
Excelsior Road and the center line of Evergreen Avenue (said center line of said Evergreen
Avenue shall be a line parallel with the Southwesterly line of Block 15, MENDOZA PARK and
40 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the Southwesterly line of said Block 15)
extended Westerly to make said intersection with the center line of said Excelsior Road, thence
running Southeasterly along said center line if said Evergreen Avenue until it intersects the
center line of France Avenue; thence Southerly along the center line of France Avenue to a point
315.5 feet Southwesterly from the point of intersection of said center line of Excelsior Road with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Northwesterly to a point in the center line of Excelsior
Road 315.5 feet Southwesterly from the intersection of said centerline of said Excelsior Road
with the East Line of said Section 6; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Excelsior
Road to the point of beginning.
Subject to easements of the public in France Avenue and Excelsior Road.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 20
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
3921 Excelsior Boulevard:
Parcel A:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, West of
the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line
of Lot 1, Block 1, HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE, which point is 3 feet Southwesterly as
measured along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, from the Northwest corner thereof; thence
Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, and same extended, a distance 78.3
feet, and which point is actual point of beginning of the tract of land hereby to be described;
thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 190.1 feet; thence East a distance of 48 feet,
more or less, to a point on the West line of France Avenue South, as the same is now laid out and
constructed, which point is 153.2 feet North as measured along the West line of France Avenue
South and the East line of Lot 46, Block 1, of said HANKE’S MINIKAHDA TERRACE from
the Southeast corner of said Lot 46; thence North along the West line of said France Avenue
South a distance of 32.55 feet, more or less, to a point on a line, said line being described as
follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the center of Excelsior Avenue South with
the East line of said Section 6; thence Southwesterly along the center of said avenue 316.5 feet;
thence Southeasterly at right angles with said avenue 239.35 feet, more or less, to the point of
intersection of said line with the West line of France Avenue, and which point is the point
referred to; thence Northwesterly along said last described line 207.9 feet, more or less, to a
point on the extension Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, Block, 1 HANKE’S MINIKAHDA
TERRACE; thence Southwesterly at right angles and along said extended line a distance of 53
feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, excepting, however, therefrom the Northwesterly 17
feet taken for street opening of Excelsior Boulevard.
Subject to easement for driveway purposes as created by deed recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as document No. 2647512, and recorded in
1861 of Deeds, page 269.
Subject to a perpetual easement for street, utility, and drainage purposes over that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 52.00 feet Southeasterly of the centerline
of Excelsior Boulevard, recorded as Document No. 6718583, in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. On November 2, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of a variance to
reduce the required distance between the carwash adjacent residential properties from
100 feet to 60 feet.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 21
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable practical difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 11-21-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work before January 1, 2014.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance is granted based upon the findings set forth above, as follows:
1. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance requirement of Section 36-194(d)(3), reducing the
required distance between a residential property line and an automatic carwash from 100 feet
to 60 feet.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 22
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 2, 2011 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. Zoning Change, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Location: 3901 and 3921 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Alberto Bertomeu
Case Nos.: 11-19-Z, 11-20-CUP, 11-21-VAR
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He explained the request is a rezoning
from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to C-2 General Commercial, a Conditional Use
Permit to allow motor vehicle service with a carwash, and a variance to reduce the
distance requirement between the carwash and adjacent residential property. Staff has
recommended approval of the rezoning and Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions.
Staff has recommended denial of the variance request as it does not meet the criteria of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fulton explained that the project could move forward without
approval of the variance. The carwash would need to be modified to meet the setback
requirements.
Commissioner Carper asked if it was feasible to relocate the carwash on the site.
Mr. Fulton replied that question could best be addressed to the applicant.
Alberto Bertomeu, applicant, distributed a handout of plans and drawings. He provided
background on his applications. He explained that his hardship concerns the storm sewer
pipe. He said there is no mention of the pipe in the property Abstract. It was discovered
by his engineer. He cannot build over the pipe. It limits the use of the site entirely.
Mr. Bertomeu said his choices are to try to find a compromise through his current plans,
sell the property, or use legal remedies.
Mr. Bertomeu spoke about the setback. He said he doesn’t know how else to develop the
site other than by the requested variance.
Mr. Bertomeu spoke about the carwash design which keeps cars and noise inside the
building throughout the whole process. He discussed the high efficiency dryers that will
be used in the carwash. He said he has held lengthy conversations about his proposal
with Bader Development and the management staff of the Ellipse on Excelsior
development across the street from his property.
Commissioner Kramer asked if there was a Plan B that would be satisfactory.
Mr. Bertomeu replied that there is no Plan B. Plan B would be to take legal action and try
to find a remedy to the pipe. Another option is that a chain store would buy the property.
Commissioner Person asked if the applicant was proposing a second floor addition.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 23
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Mr. Bertomeu said he was not proposing a second floor.
Commissioner Carper asked if there was a similar type of carwash in the Twin Cities.
Mr. Bertomeu said there are similar carwashes that have multiple lanes, but no one
locally has the equipment. The equipment would be imported from Finland. Because
everything is very small in Finland noise is a very big issue. They have technology
which reduces noise and water. Detroit is the only city in the Upper Midwest where there
might be similar equipment.
Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing.
John Miller, 3550 France Ave. S., said he’s lived in his home for 58 years, has had a lot
of business with the City Council and has never had any problem with a staff report.
Chair Johnston-Madison acknowledged e-mails included in the staff report received from
Robb Bader, Ellipse on Excelsior; Adrianne Lebow, 3540 & 3544 France Ave.; Esta
Miller, 3947 Excelsior Blvd.; Paul Brown, 4500 Morningside Rd., and Martin Fowler,
3601 Huntington Ave.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said historically we look at distance in protecting residential
from certain uses. He said technology changes and the applicant has a proposal for a
different kind of carwash which eliminates noise through technology and design. He said
he didn’t feel a precedent would be set by granting the variance. He said the applicant
has met the intent of the Zoning Ordinance which is to protect the adjacent property.
Commissioner Robertson stated he supported approval of all three applications.
Chair Johnston-Madison asked about the driveway easement.
Mr. Fulton responded that the driveway easement provides access for the residential
garage and also to a parking lot behind the office building west of the applicant’s parking lot.
Chair Johnston-Madison said she supported the variance request because of the reasons
stated by Commissioner Robertson and also related to the residential garage. She said
she hoped more screening could be added for more privacy.
Commissioner Morris said the variance is about sight line and noise abatement. It
involves one property owner with the orientation of the house and the garage. He
supported the variance with the condition of a green fence or trees which would screen
and create a noise abatement barrier to the residential property. We want commercial
development, we want economic development and we want to protect residents from
unnecessary light, noise and activity.
Commissioner Kramer stated he was in favor of providing the variance. He asked about
the possibility of a variance that was conditioned on actual decibel reading of the finished
project.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Page 24
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Commissioner Morris responded that the investment in the structure would already be in
place.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed and understood but he was saying that the owner is
willing to make the investment and at the end prove that it is quiet. He said he wouldn’t
do it and he wouldn’t expect the applicant to do it but it would show his degree of
confidence about how serious he is about the project.
Commissioner Carper asked about decibel level standards.
Mr. Fulton responded that the standard is about 65 decibels. He added that it’s not a
measurement taken at the property line, it’s a measurement taken at any adjacent houses
immediately outside the house. It’s governed by state law.
Ms. McMonigal said it is a complicated measurement which has to be a constant amount
during a certain amount of time per day in order to be a violation. She said in this case it
would probably be difficult to get to that violation stage.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Bertomeu if he had engineering specification sheets
regarding decibel output. He asked if there was any modeling of decibel level at different
distances from the building.
Mr. Bertomeu said he didn’t have that information but could provide it. He remarked the
points raised are valid. He stated that when the doors are closed the decibel noise cannot
escape the building. The issue is when carwashes open their doors prematurely with the
blowers going. He said he will not allow doors to open until the blowers are shut off.
Mr. Bertomeu showed a drawing of an internal structure inside the carwash with two
doors at the end where the blowers are located. It is like a garage within the carwash
with the noise going backward, not out.
Ms. McMonigal reviewed the proposed conditions for the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Morris said he would recommend approval of the variance based on the
new interpretation of hardship. There is a reasonable use of the property, the actual
residence is further back from the property line, and since it is private property we can’t
mandate this. But it’s conditional on the applicant making a reasonable effort to offer the
property additional landscaping or fencing screening. If a reasonable offer is made to
abate those issues, he thinks the applicant is in compliance with what the new ordinance
is saying about uniqueness and hardship.
Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending approval of the Rezoning from C-1
to C-2, approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions, and approval of the
Variance; adding a condition of reasonable effort of the applicant, monitored by city
staff, to supply additional screening to the resident subject to the variance.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations
Prepared by the St. Louis Park
Community Development Department
Existing:
Proposed:
²
Legend
Zoning Information
Zoning Districts
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 25
From:Esta Miller
To:Adam Fulton
Subject:car wash
Date:Friday, October 07, 2011 10:23:54 AM
I just want to let you know that I am in favor of a remodeled service station (with aconvience store) and a car wash. I am concerned that it may be used as a used car lot.The street looks so nice with the addition of the Elipse that I don't want to see usedvehicles with painted prices on their windshields lined up on the property.
Thank you,
Esta Miller
Partner of 3947 Excelsior Blvd.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 26
From:Adrianne Lebow
To:Adam Fulton
Subject:3901& 3921 Excelsior Blvd. Planning Comm Meeting
Date:Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:51:45 AM
Dear Planning Commission:
I own the residential properties at 3540 & 3544 France Avenue South. I have
owned these properties over 30 years and resided at 3544 for over 20 years.
At this time it is all rental property(side by side double bungalow) but I
would love to move back into a side when I downsize in my retirement.
The garage/gas station located at 3901 Excelsior Blvd. was always a good
community neighbor the 20+ years I lived at 3544 France. The property at
3921 Excelsior was always a parking lot for the office building at the
corner of Excelsior and Glenhurst-I never knew they could sell it. In the
past several years I have noticed the gas station, surrounding landscape and
parking lot look neglected and may have some deferred maintenance issues. I
hope there are good things to come for this property but I do have some
concerns. I am sorry I am not able to attend the meeting I am out of town. I
do not have any specific information about the new design and plans for 3901
& 3921 Excelsior Blvd. but with the information I have regarding adding a
car wash and a variance on the car wash's distance from residential
properties causes me great concerns for the possible negative impact on the
quality of life for residents at 3540 & 3544 France Ave So.
The concerns are:
* Hours of operation of the car wash and station.
* Noise/sound(car wash & blowers are very noisy) barriers for residential
property.
* Building and equipment barriers between commercial and residential
properties.
* Lighting, proper for safety but not invasive for homes.
* Traffic flow-very busy and congested now at this triangle.
* Parking lot turning into an auto junkyard, filled with vehicles that never
move.
* Ongoing maintenance and upkeep of property, landscaping and parking lots.
* Water drainage.
Thank you for considering my these issues and please contact me with any
further information regarding the above.
Adrianne Lebow
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 27
From:Robb Bader
To:Adam Fulton
Subject:Final Version
Date:Tuesday, November 01, 2011 9:25:39 AM
Adam,
>
Please forward this to the members of the planning commission for
Wednesday's meeting.
> I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday
> night so I'd like to e-mail you my thoughts for your review regarding
> the Minikahda Mobil application for Alberto Bertomeu. Our company
> Bader Development owns the Ellipse apartment complex right across the
> street from this Mobil station and we are planning to add 58 more
> apartments across the street so we have a vested interest in what
> Alberto is planning to do.
>
>
> After speaking with Alberto I'd like to express my thoughts on the 2
> major items at hand:
>
> 1. Relocation of the storm water line - We dealt with this issue
> during the development of The Ellipse and it was a real concern for
> us. The cost to relocate this line was between $150,000 and $200,000
> and it took some long meetings with our development team and the city
> to figure out a way to pay for this type of item. I remember what a
> hardship it was for us to work through and we were working with a $30
> million dollar budget so I can understand why an individual like
> Alberto who is doing a much smaller project would consider this task
> next to impossible......and I agree with him.
>
> 2. The Variance regarding the placement and size of the car wash - My
> understanding is that the placement of the car wash and the size of it
> requires a variance. After speaking with Alberto, he explained that
> if he located his new car wash in a place where the storm water line
> didn't need to be relocated it creates the need for a variance due to
> the size and placement of the new car wash. It is very important to
> us that the sound of the car wash be controlled in order to provide
> the neighborhood residents (including the Ellipse tenants) with quiet
> enjoyment of their homes. Alberto has informed us that the reason the
> car wash is to be the length that has been presented is because he
> wants to keep the noise inside the car wash. I would hope that the
> city take into consideration the importance of our residents at the
> Ellipse along with our neighbors and allow him to do everything he can
> to mitigate the noise from the car wash by allowing the variance to
> provide the ability to build the necessary structure to keep the
neighborhood happy.
>
> Lastly, I look at this intersection as the gateway to St. Louis Park
> and we have done everything in our power to invest in our property to
> make sure it represents what Bader Development and the City of St.
> Louis Park have envisioned for the corner of Excelsior and France.
> After speaking with Alberto on many occasions, I truly believe he is
> trying to do the same. The City of St. Louis Park has done a great
> job investing its time and resources into making Excelsior Boulevard
> what it is today and I would support the Planning Commission and the
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 28
> City Council should they decide to grant Alberto this variance.
Please feel free to call me with any questions at 952-540-8643.
Robb Bader
Vice President - Bader Development
5402 Parkdale Drive #200
Minneapolis, MN 55416
952-540-8643 ph
952-540-8601 fax
rbader@baderdevelopment.com
www.baderdevelopment.com
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 29
From:Paul Brown
To:Adam Fulton
Subject:Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion
Date:Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:22:36 AM
Mr. Adam Fulton
Planner
Community Development Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Gentlemen,
I am writing this email in support of Minikahda Mobile Service Station. They have been a very long
term business in St. Louis Park in that location. My family and I have been long term customers
also. My family and I have lived in St. Louis Park for a total of 60 years. This is a quality business
that provides excellent service to the community. We need businesses like theirs to provide us
with reasonable and reliable local service. It’s wonderful how Excelsior Boulevard has been
redeveloped. Keeping the existing that is great with the new is part of a smart city. And this
business is a part of a full service retail street that you are trying to create and maintain. On
Excelsior Boulevard where there were many service stations there are now only a few. And
Minikahda Mobile is one of the best. In addition the car wash is a needed service with the extra
hours it will be available.
Sincerely,
Paul Brown
4500 Morningside Road
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 30
From:Martin Fowler
To:Adam Fulton
Cc:albertobertomeu@msn.com
Subject:Restoration and improvement of 3901 / 3921 Excel Blvd.
Date:Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:28:43 PM
Applicant: Mr. Alberto Bertomeu
Case No.: 11-19-Z
To Whom It May Concern:
I write to support the requested zoning, the restoration and remodel,
and addition to the Mobile gas station, Minikahda Mobile; the
addition to the present structure of a car wash; and improved
convenience store at the point of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.
Saint Louis Park city management has taken considerable care to
specify appropriate plan changes which address issues of concern to
me. When these issues are addressed and met the complete project will
greatly enhance the entry image of our city and improve the appeal of
our light commercial and hospitality industry.
I note the considerable site addition of nineteen trees, shrubs to
augment the improved and successful Boulevard landscape. But I would
like to see an overall landscape design strategy for the new
structure and expanded site, a specimen list (hopefully with some
consideration paid to bird habitat and perhaps food sources such as
ornamental / flowering fruit trees and seed producing grasses),
irrigation and electrical / lighting schemes that amplify the present
median impression. And if it's appropriate, seasonal and flowering
planters could accent areas where in-ground installation would be
inappropriate or unsuccessful.
My family has owned our two lots and home on the Boulevard since
1948. We are proud of our city management, police, and schools. We
thank Alberto for his support of this community, for his team of
mechanical talent and helpful customer service ... a true neighbor.
His proposed improved property will be a good demonstration of his
ongoing commitment to our neighborhood. (The resulting improved tax
base won't hurt either.)
Sincere regards,
Martin G. Fowler
3601 Huntington Ave
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952.926.9770
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 31
Use Matrix – C-1 to C-2
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 General Commercial
Permitted Permitted
Park / Open Space Medical/Dental Office
Funeral homes
Libraries
Museums
Permitted with Conditions Parks/open space
Adult Day Care Police/fire stations
Group Care / Nursery School Banks
Parks/Recreation Business/trade school/college
Public Service Structures Offices
Animal Handling Retail up to 20,000 sq. ft.
Appliance, small engine and bicycle repair Service
Food service Studios
Printing process Showrooms
Private indoor entertainment Parking lot
Restaurants Transit station
Service up to 2,500 sq. ft. Large item retail < 20,000 sq. ft.
Studio
Communication Towers < 45’ Permitted with Conditions
Limited Impact Sexually Oriented Business Adult Day Care
Residential/Multi-Family Dry cleaning
Libraries Group Care / Nursery School
Museums Parks/Recreation
Police/Fire Stations Public service structures
Transit Stations Utility substation
Parking business Animal handling
Parking lot Appliance repair
Medical/Dental Office Convention / exhibit hall
Funeral home Food service
Banks Hotel / motel
Business/trade schools/college Medical labs
Office Outdoor sales
Retail Printing process
Large item retail Private indoor entertainment
Shopping Centers Restaurants
Shopping center < 50,000 sq. ft.
Conditional Use Permit Communication towers < 110’
Motor fuel station Parking ramps
Uses exceeding classification 4 Limited impact sexually oriented business
More than 1 principal building High impact sexually oriented business
- Minimum of 350’ from residential
Residential/Multi-Family Residential, in multi-story bldgs
Post Office
Drive-through service Conditional Use Permit
Educational Motor fuel stations
Places of Assembly Motor vehicle sales
Communication towers < 70’ Motor vehicle service and repair with carwash
Places of assembly
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 32
More than one principal building
Multi-family housing
Elderly housing
Post office
Drive-through service
Retail stores over 20,000 sq. ft.
Shopping center between 50,000 and 200,000
sq. ft.
Educational
Communication towers < 170’
Pawnshops, min. 350’ from residential
Payday loan, min. 350’ from residential
Firearm sales, min. 350’ from residential
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 33
1
Public Works Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2555 Fax: (952) 924-2663
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6, 2011
TO: ADAM FULTON, Planner
FROM: LAURA ADLER, Engineering Program Coordinator
RE: Minnikahda Mobil
Plan Comments
Plans for Minnikahda Mobil have been reviewed and the following comments are provided. The plans
are dated Auigust 22, 2011, Construction Consultants, Inc.
Storm Drainage
1. The new storm sewer shown on Excelsior Boulevard should connect to the main, not to the
existing catchbasin.
2. The applicant will need to meet all requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distrcit.
Utilities
1. The new sanitary sewer main should be 10 inch diameter, not 8 inch.
2. The sanitary sewer that is removed should be removed all the way to the main, not just to the
property line.
3. The applicant will need to verify that there is no conflict with the monument at the bus stop on
Excelsior Boulevard and the placement of the new sanitary sewer.
4. The new 6” water service is shown as coming off the existing water service line. We will need to
see the size of that service line to determine if this is acceptable or if the new 6” water service
line will need to come off of the watermain.
5. Please provide details on the sanitary sewer/water service crossing in order to ensure that there is
enough separation between the two lines. We would prefer that the lines do not cross.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 34
2
Permits
1. Right-of-way permits must be obtained from Hennepin County for all work in the right-of-way,
including utility work, driveway/curb work, and sidewalks.
2. A City Erosion Control Permit will be required.
3. The applicant must obtain permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Other
1. We would like to see some clarification of the right-of-way/easements at the intersection of
France Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 35
From:Robert.Byers@co.hennepin.mn.us
To:Adam Fulton
Cc:Eric.Drager@co.hennepin.mn.us ; Carolyn.Fackler@co.hennepin.mn.us
Subject:RE: Minnikahda Mobil
Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:52:28 PM
Attachments:pic26072.jpg
Adam:
I discussed the proposed site plan with our Traffic / Permits folks and we have the following comments:
France Avenue - southern driveway
We have concerns regarding widening the driveway entrance to 36-feet which would allow two 2-
way side-by-side traffic movements from both the
gas station and the office building. This design has the potential to be confusing, encourage
vehicles to cross paths and be entering and
exiting at various angles.
Does the gas station currently have cross-access easement rights to use the existing driveway, or is
the widening being proposed as a means of
adding another access point? We believe that we could consider some limited widening of this
driveway entrance, however it would need to be
designed a a joint driveway to better serve both properties.
The function and need for the internal connection between the car wash entrance and the southern
driveway is unclear to us. It appears to be
set up as one -way southbound, but there could be some confusion to drivers who enter the
southern driveway that they can proceed northbound
through this opening.
Is the primary purpose of the parking area along the property's western boundary needed to store
vehicles being serviced by the gas station?
France Avenue - northern driveway
The county is not willing to approve the widening of the existing driveway to 60 feet, nor do we see
that this widening would particularly help
the on-site traffic circulation. Similar to our comments above, a driveway that is too wide
encourages conflicts between entering and exiting
vehicles as they cross paths and the approach angles can vary so greatly.
We would recommend a driveway width somewhat similar to what exists today similar to the
eastern Excelsior Boulevard driveway of 30 feet.
Excelsior Boulevard - western driveway
Since the circulation of the rear parking lot is one-way, we would recommend reshaping the
western driveway entrance onto Excelsior Boulevard.
This would help to guide vehicles to make a proper right turn and it could also shorten the sidewalk
crossing distance.
Any questions, just call.
Thanks!
- Bob
(Embedded image moved to file: pic26072.jpg)
From: "Adam Fulton" <AFULTON@stlouispark.org>
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 36
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
2011 Variance Legislation
The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or
statutory cross-references.
After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of
HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature.
On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota
Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to
Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also
provides consistent statutory language between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county
variance authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7.
In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of
“undue hardship” and held that the “reasonable use” prong of the “undue hardship” test is not
whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence
of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the “reasonable manner” understanding
that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling.
The new law was effective on May 6, the day following
the governor’s approval. Presumably it applies to
pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are
to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at
the time of application.
The new law renames the municipal variance standard
from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test
of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new
to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.”
In addition, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those
conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the
variance.
Learn More
Read more about variances in:
Land Use Variances: Frequently
Asked Questions
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 37
2
In evaluating variance requests under the new law, cities should adopt findings addressing the
following questions:
Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory language, or that have
their own set of standards. For those cities, the question may be whether you have to first amend
your zoning code before processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be
made that that the statutory language pre-empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions. Under a
pre-emption theory, cities could apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending
their ordinance first. In any regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance
provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute.
Attached are a collection of sample documents reflecting the 2011 variance legislation. The
attached samples include a draft ordinance, application form, and findings of fact template. While
the attached materials may contain provisions that could serve as models in drafting your own
documents, your city attorney would need to review prior to council action to tailor to your city’s
needs. Your city may have different ordinance requirements that need to be accommodated.
If you have questions about how your city should approach variances under this new statute, you
should discuss it with your city attorney or contact Jed Burkett, LMC land use attorney, at
jburkett@lmc.org or (651) 281-1247, or Tom Grundhoefer, LMC general counsel, at
tgrundho@lmc.org or (651) 281-1266.
Jed Burkett 06/11
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 38
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station ExpansionPage 39
WASH EXITWASH ENTRANCECity Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station ExpansionPage 40
AREA 1AREA 2EXISTING GREEN AREAS - 3539 SQ FTCity Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station ExpansionPage 41
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station ExpansionPage 42
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 43
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 44
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Minikahda Mobile Service Station Expansion Page 45
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8c
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:
Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the following three actions which will allow for the implementation of the
housing improvement area project:
• Motion to Adopt Second Reading of an ordinance to establish the Greensboro
Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and authorize
publication.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution to impose fees.
• Motion to Authorize execution of Contract for Private Development and any other related
documents, by the Mayor and City Manager, between the City and Greensboro
Condominium Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and
resolution.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the final actions necessary to establish and implement the
Greensboro Housing Improvement Area?
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.
BACKGROUND:
On November 21, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing to establish the Greensboro
Condominium Association as a Housing Improvement Area (HIA). The association petitioned
the City to establish the area for the purpose of financing needed common area improvements.
The Council approved the first reading of an ordinance to establish the Greensboro
Condominium HIA by a 5-0 vote with 1 abstention, and scheduled the second reading for
December 5, 2011.
The HIA statute requires the Council to provide full disclosure of public expenditures, as well as
the terms of any loans, bonds, or other financing arrangements for housing improvement area
projects prior to establishing a housing improvement area. This information was discussed in the
Public Hearing Notice and discussed at the meeting of November 21, 2011. It is also included in
the resolution being considered at the meeting on December 5, 2011. The attached staff report
for the November 21, 2011 public hearing provides detailed background information.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
The City Council hearing was attended by approximately twenty-four Greensboro Condominium
Association owners. The Association President and seven other owners spoke in support of
creating the HIA and one owner spoke in opposition. The maximum loan amount would be
$3,385,000 with a 20 year term at an estimated 6.03% interest rate. Fees would be payable with
real estate taxes over a 20 year period beginning in 2013, or owners may opt to prepay the
imposed fee by February 16, 2011.
Required Implementation Actions:
1. Ordinance Establishing the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement
Area
The ordinance establishes 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. The ordinance documents the process and provides the finance
tool for common area improvements. Significant issues addressed in the ordinance are:
• The City’s goal to maintain and preserve the City’s housing stock and stabilize
neighborhoods.
• A majority of owners filed a petition requesting a public hearing regarding
establishment of the HIA.
• The association has documented that without establishment of the HIA, the common
area improvements could not be made.
• A public hearing was conducted on November 21, 2011.
The City is required to publish a summary of the ordinance (attached) and mail the ordinance
summary to owners of all units within five days of adoption of the ordinance.
2. Resolution to Impose Fees
This document ensures that the City meets statutory requirements of imposing fees to unit
owners for repayment of the association loan. The key issues are:
The fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of
undivided ownership) of each unit, for Building Common elements based on the square
footage of each unit and type of building in which the unit is located, and for Limited
Common Elements based on the actual cost of garages, balconies and lockers for each unit,
all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Greensboro Condominium.
• Fees will be payable beginning in 2013. Unit owners have been notified of their
individual liability.
• Fees will be payable with real estate tax payments.
• The process for prepayment of fees by owners is described.
• A written objection process allows individual owners to file an objection to inclusion
in the area and subjection of fees.
• A veto period of 45 days follows the adoption of the ordinance, where 45% of the
owners, or 45% of tax capacity, may file written objections. If this occurs the statute
requires that the HIA not be put in place.
The City is required to mail a summary of the resolution (attached) to owners of all units
within five days of its approval along with a notice of the veto process.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
3. Contract for Private Development
The City would enter into a Contract for Private Development with the Greensboro
Condominium Association after the 45 day veto period expires. Staff will be working with
Kennedy & Graven, Association Board members and their property management company,
Gassen Management, regarding drafting and revisions.
Kennedy & Graven has outlined the major business points of the agreement, which is
consistent with the previous HIA agreements:
• Association will provide ongoing financial reports & records for the term of the loan.
• Association will provide its assets (in the form of dues, fees, assessments and
covenants) as security to the City.
• Association will retain a replacement reserve fund agreed upon by the city and
association for the term of the loan.
• Association will retain professional property management for the term of loan.
• Association will ensure improvements are completed according to specific requirements.
• Monies will be disbursed as work is verified by City representatives as being completed.
• Association will provide notice of fee to prospective buyers.
4. City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (EDA) Internal Loan Fund
Resolution
The Internal Loan Fund resolution will be considered at a future EDA meeting. There will
be an internal loan of $1,100,000 from the City/EDA Development Fund, and the city will
issue bonds for the remainder of the loan amount, not to exceed $2,285,200. The resolution
formalizes the loan mechanism and includes:
• A method of segregating loan funds from City funds by establishing a project fund.
• The maximum total loan amount (internal loan plus bonds) would be $3,385,000,
which includes construction costs for improvement of $3,262,680; administrative costs
of $29,675; soft costs of $308,000; finance and bond issuance costs of $91,626; and
capitalized interest of $143,019.
• The internal loan would have a 20 year term, 6.03% interest, accrual to begin January
1, 2013.
• The exact terms of the bonds would be determined at the time of competitive public
sale.
• Disbursement will be made to association upon written certification that items
proposed for payment are complete and necessary.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed HIA would result in the City lending Greensboro Condominium Association a
maximum of $3,385,000. A combination of City Development Funds and bonds will fund this
project. Using bonds will alleviate the concern that large amounts of City reserve funds be tied
up for a twenty-year p eriod and will ensure that the City has sufficient dollars available for more
immediate cash flow needs. Using internal funds will allow the city to generate interest income
and allow residents to pay off their remaining total fee in the future. Bonds will be issued in
March/April 2012.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
All costs of the HIA are funded with the loan. The administrative costs incurred by the city are
covered by an administrative fee of one-half of one percent of the project cost which equals
$19,175 and is paid to the City after the loan closing. The underwriting, bond issuance costs,
and all soft costs are included in the total loan amount.
An internal loan resolution will be drafted to formalize the internal loan arrangement and will be
considered at a future Economic Development Authority meeting. Bond documents will be
drafted at the time of issuance of the bonds. A Development Agreement with the Association
will ensure that the total loan is secured by Association Assets, defined as dues, fees,
assessments and other income owing to the Association from unit owners. Fees will be payable
with property tax payments beginning in 2013. Owners will have the option to prepay prior to
the fees being assessed and avoid interest costs. Owners will also have the option to pay off the
fee in the future.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Greensboro Condominium Owners’ HIA improvements are consistent with Vision
St. Louis Park and the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park is
committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool addresses
affordably valued, aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock. The
proposed improvements specifically address the focus of property maintenance to foster quality
housing and community aesthetics. The proposed improvements also preserve affordable single-
family home ownership by making the improvements affordable using a low interest long-term loan.
Attachments: Ordinance Establishing the Greensboro HIA
Summary of Ordinance
Resolution Approving a Housing Improvement Fee for the Greensboro HIA
Notice to Owners with Summaries of Ordinance and Resolution
Council Report of November 21, 2011
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 5
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 6
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 7
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 8
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
Legal description
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 9
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 428A.11 to 428A.21.
This ordinance establishes the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement
Area, which is the area legally described on Exhibit A of the Ordinance, and specifies the
"Housing Improvements" that will be constructed in Greensboro Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area and financed with the Housing Improvement Fee.
This ordinance provides that the City may impose a fee on housing units in an amount sufficient
to produce revenues required to construct the Housing Improvements (the “Housing
Improvement Fee”). The Housing Improvement Fee is set by a separate City Council resolution,
but the ordinance lays out the ground rules on how the Housing Improvement Fee will be
determined. Those rules are summarized as follows:
• The Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed for Common Elements based on the
square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) of each unit, will be imposed for
Building Common Elements based on the square footage of each unit and the type of
building in which the unit is located, and will be imposed for Limited Common Elements
based on the actual cost of garages, balconies and lockers for each unit.
• The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the
resolution.
• The Housing Improvement Fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner
as property taxes.
• The total Housing Improvement Fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in
the notice of public hearing for the resolution imposing the Housing Improvement Fee.
This ordinance provides that at any time after the City has entered into a contract with the
Greensboro Condominium Association for construction of the Housing Improvements, or after
work has been ordered, the Council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds
of (a) an internal loan of available City funds in the principal amount necessary to finance a
portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements that has not been prepaid, together with
administrative costs, and (b) bonds of the City secured by Housing Improvement Fees as
authorized by the Act, in the principal amount necessary to finance the portion of the cost of the
Housing Improvements not financed by the internal loan or by prepayments. This ordinance
requires that Greensboro Condominium Association submit audited financial statements to the
City each year while there are outstanding obligations issued under the Act.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 10
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association 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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 18
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS OF GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
REGARDING GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
AND HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE
On December 5, 2011 the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park adopted Ordinance
No.______ establishing the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area,
and Resolution No ______ imposing a housing improvement fee to finance various housing
improvements in that area, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the
"Act").
Owners of more than 50 percent of the housing units in Greensboro Condominium Association
Housing Improvement Area filed petitions with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing
regarding both the ordinance and the fee resolution. The public hearings for the ordinance and the
fee resolution were held on November 21, 2011.
Within 5 days after adoption of the ordinance and the resolution, the City is required under the
Housing Improvement Act to mail this notice to owners of each housing unit in the affected area.
Following is a summary of the ordinance and the resolution, and some important information about
your rights as an owner of a housing unit in Greensboro Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.____-11
Affected Area: The ordinance establishes Greensboro Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area, which is the area legally described on Exhibit A of the Ordinance and which
includes all of the Greensboro Condominium Association real estate.
Housing Improvements: The ordinance specifies the "Housing Improvements" that will be
constructed in Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area and financed
with the Housing Improvement Fee. Those improvements are defined as follows:
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.
Housing Improvement Fee: The ordinance provides that the City may impose a fee on housing
units in an amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Housing Improvements.
The fee is set by a separate City Council resolution (see summary below), but the ordinance lays
out the ground rules on how the fee will be determined. Those rules are summarized as follows:
• The fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of
undivided ownership) of each unit, shall be imposed for Building Common Elements based
on the square footage of each unit and the type of building in which the unit is located, and
shall be imposed for Limited Common Elements based on the actual cost of garages, lockers
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 19
and balconies for each unit, all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated Declaration of
Greensboro Condominium.
• The fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the resolution imposing the fee.
• The fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes.
• The total fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public
hearing for the resolution imposing the fee.
Financing: The ordinance provides that at any time after the City has entered into a contract with
the Greensboro Condominium Association for construction of the Housing Improvements, or after
work has been ordered, the Council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of
(a) an internal loan of available City funds in the principal amount necessary to finance a portion of
the cost of the Housing Improvements that has not been prepaid, together with administrative costs,
and (b) bonds of the City secured by Housing Improvement Fees, in the principal amount necessary
to finance the portion of the costs of the Housing Improvements not financed by the internal loan or
by prepayments, as provided in Section 428A.16 of the Act.
Annual Report: The ordinance requires that Greensboro Condominium Association submit
audited financial statements to the City each year while there are outstanding obligations issued
under the Act.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
Fee Imposed: The resolution describes the total Housing Improvement Fee for each housing unit.
The fee shall be imposed for Common Elements based on the square footage (percentage of
undivided ownership) of each unit, shall be imposed for Building Common Elements based on
square footage of each unit and the type of building in which the unit is located, 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. The estimated total cost of the Housing Improvements is: $3,385,000 including
administrative and finance costs. The annual fee per unit is shown on Exhibit A to the resolution.
Prepayment: The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in whole but not in part, without
interest, before February 16, 2012, after which an annual Housing Improvement Fee will be
imposed. The annual Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in whole on any date, in an
amount equal to outstanding principal plus accrued interest. Prepayments made before November
15 of any year must include accrued interest through the end of the then-current year, while
prepayments made after November 15 of any year must include accrued interest through the end of
the following year.
Annual Payment: For housing unit owners who do not prepay the Housing Improvement Fee on
or before February 16, 2012, an annual Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed beginning in
January, 2013, for a period no greater than 20 years. The fee will include interest at a rate of
6.03%.
County Fee: An additional fee of less than $5.00 may be imposed by Hennepin County for
administrative services in order for the Housing Improvement Fee to be made payable at the same
time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 20
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
Housing unit owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto either the
ordinance, the fee resolution, or both if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within
Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area file an objection with the City
Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or the resolution. The key dates are as follows:
Ordinance and Resolution adopted: December 5, 2011
Resolution and Ordinance effective; veto/objections filing deadline: January 19, 2012
City deadline to prepay fee in full without interest: February 16, 2012
FURTHER INFORMATION
Copies of Ordinance No. ______and Resolution No. _____are on file with City Clerk for
public inspection (The fee for each unit is attached as Exhibit A to the resolution). If you have
questions about the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area or the
housing improvement fee, contact Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator, at 952-924-2196.
Dated: December 6, 2011
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 21
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
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 22
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.
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,
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 23
have reviewed the HIA financing to ensure it is within applicable state statute and financial
requirements.
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 24
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 December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 25
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.
d. From February through September 2011, the renovation committee met almost weekly to
review findings, communicate status with residents and take input.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 26
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.
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.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 27
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.
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
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 28
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.
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.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 29
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
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.
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 30
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
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Establishment of Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Page 31
Meeting Date: December 5, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8d
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 Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code – Rental Housing Licensing.
RECOMMNEDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve First Reading of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
clarifying the administrative appeal process for rental housing licensing and set second reading
for December 19, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to amend the city code to include additional language clarifying the
administrative appeal process for rental licensing?
BACKGROUND:
The city has been performing licensing and inspection of multi-family rental properties since the
1970’s. Periodic revisions to the City Code have occasionally occurred to expand and improve
the program. Most significantly were the additions of one and two family rental properties in
2005 and the crime free/drug free and disorderly use components added to the program in 2008.
More than 7,700 rental units within 900 buildings throughout the city are currently licensed and
inspected on a regular basis. All licensees are required to provide the crime free/drug free and
disorderly use lease addendum to each tenant as part of the general lease acknowledging
compliance with the crime free/drug free and disorderly use provisions.
DISCUSSION:
The amendments proposed to City Code Sections 8-331 and 8-332 are intended to further clarify
the administrative appeal process available to the licensee of rental property. The license appeal
process already provided in other licensing sections is being included in Section 8-332 when a
Notice of Violation requiring termination of tenant(s) due to a crime free/drug free lease
violation or repeated disorderly use violations has been issued. After receiving notice, the
licensee may request an administrative hearing before the City Manager within 10 days if they
disagree with the facts or conditions leading to the Notice of Violation decision. Section 8-332
clarifies the administrative hearing alternative if the administrative fee is assessed should a
licensee fail to proceed with the termination of tenancy.
If adopted, the proposed language will improve transparency of the right for administrative
hearings available to the licensee. No other changes to the crime free/drug free and disorderly
use provisions or the rental licensing program will be affected by this amendment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of City Code – Rental Housing Licensing
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
RELATING TO RENTAL HOUSING LICENSING TO
CLARIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 8-331 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the
following subsection:
(h) The owner may appeal the Notice of Violation of the Subsection (c) Crime
Free/Drug Free lease language or the Subsection (f) Notice of Disorderly Use
Violation by making a written request to the City Manager for a hearing within
ten (10) days of receipt of the Notice. The owner shall have the right to appear at
the hearing and present any relevant evidence, including the right to challenge the
validity of all three incidents forming the basis for a disorderly use notice
pursuant to Subsection (f). The City Manager or designee shall promptly conduct
the hearing and issue the decision either affirming or reversing the Notice of
Violation. If the Notice of Violation is affirmed, the owner will have ten (10)
days from receipt of the decision to proceed with termination of the tenancy as
required by Subsection (c) or (f).
SECTION 2. Section 8-332 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
An owner failing to proceed with an action to terminate the tenancy after Police
Department notification in accordance with a Crime Free/Drug Free violation or the third
Disorderly Use violation shall pay an administrative license violation fee of $750.00 for
each calendar month that the owner fails to proceed. Any outstanding fees must be paid
prior to the city renewing a rental license for the licensed premises. The owner may
appeal the imposition of the fee to the City Manager or designee by making a written
request for a hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of the Notice of Imposition of the
administrative fee.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2011, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
ATTEST: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
___ By:__ ______
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___
City Attorney