HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/10/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
OCTOBER 10, 2011
(Councilmember Omodt Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 24, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report
3. 7:35 p.m. Supplemental Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding Request
from Hardcoat Inc
4. 8:05 p.m. 2012 Budget Discussion
5. 8:50 p.m. ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
6. 9:35 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6
8. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011
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 Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 24, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on October 24, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 24, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 24, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 24, 2011
Study Session, October 24, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2011 City Manager Performance Evaluation – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Discuss with City Council the desired approach for the 2011 annual performance evaluation
for the City Manager.
3. Stone Mountain Pet Lodge CAP Application – Community Development (45 minutes)
Stone Mountain Pet Lodge has requested CAP funding to facilitate the renovation and
expansion of 6475 Wayzata Blvd. (former Bennigan’s restaurant building) into a full-service
pet lodge facility.
4. Oak Hill II Office Building CAP Application – Community Development (45 minutes)
Anderson KM Builders has requested CAP funding to facilitate the construction of a 21,432
SF multi-tenant office bldg at 3340 Republic Ave.
5. Aquila Commons Project & Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff wishes to update the EDA on the status of the Aquila Commons project and discuss
possible actions to stimulate the sale of units so as to make the building fully occupied and
the project successful.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
7. September 2011 Monthly Financial Report
8. Quarterly Investment Report
9. Dial-A-Ride
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #:2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A second report of food/liquor sales for the period of January 1, 2011 through August 31, 2011
for Toby Keith’s is being provided for Council review as required by Resolution No. 11-30
adopted February 22, 2011 in regards to the probationary status of the licensee.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to extend the probationary period through February 2012?
Does the Council wish to take any other action during the license period?
Does the Council need any additional information on this item?
BACKGROUND:
Toby Keith I Love this Bar began operation June 4, 2010 with a liquor license approved by
Council on April 5, 2010. In accordance with St. Louis Park City Ordinance, liquor
establishments must meet certain requirements in order to allow for Council approval of the
renewal of their liquor licenses. The renewal application received in January 2011 from Toby
Keith’s did not meet the requirement of at least 50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale
of food.
City Ordinance Section 3-71 states the City Council may attach special conditions to the
approval of a liquor license based upon the nature of the business, the location of the business
and verified complaints, if any, to protect the health, safety, welfare and quietude of the city, and
ensure harmony with the location where the business is located. Violation of any of the
conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the license.
On February 22, 2011, Council adopted Resolution No. 11-30 (attached) approving the on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Toby Keith’s for the license year term through March
1, 2012 with the following conditions:
1. Licensee is put on a probationary status for 6 months. (starting March 1 – Aug.31)
2. Licensee shall provide an interim report of food/liquor sales from Jan. - May, 2011 by June
15, 2011 for Council review.
3. Licensee shall provide a second report of food/liquor sales for the period of Jan. - Aug., 2011
by September 15, 2011.
4. Licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance requirements.
5. Staff will report final probationary results of the 6 month period to Council in September
2011 and, if in non-compliance, Council may take further action during this license period up
to and including revocation of the license.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Report
At the June 27 Study Session the Council was informed through a written report of the
food/liquor sales for the first half of the probation period of January through May as required by
condition two above. The licensee submitted a letter dated June 16 (attached) and reported sales
for the period of January through May 2011.
This report is to inform Council of the food/liquor sales reported from Toby Keith’s during the
entire 6 month probation period as required by condition three above. The licensee submitted a
letter dated September 9 (attached) stating they are making every effort to continue to achieve a
steady monthly increase in food and non-alcoholic sales.
2010 Previous Reported Sales Percentages
Months Food
%
Liquor
%
Other Retail
%
Total sales
%
June - Dec. 2010 30.92% 67.16% 1.92% 100%
2011 Reported MONTHLY Sales Percentages
Month Food
%
Liquor
%
Other Retail
%
Total sales
%
January 2011 28.53% 69.53% 1.93% 100%
February 2011 28.12% 71.05% .83% 100%
March 2011 *
(probation begins)
31.11% 68.21% .68% 100%
April 2011 31.52% 67.72% .76% 100%
May 2011 38.33% 61.33% .34% 100%
June 2011 32.72% 63.96% 3.30% 100%
July 2011 42.85% 54.80% 2.35% 100%
August 2011 46.38% 49.00% 4.61% 100%
2011 Total Reported Sales Percentages
Months Food
%
Liquor
%
Other Retail
%
Total sales
%
Jan – Aug. 2011 37.16% 62.84% (Not included) 100%
Note: Past reporting included “other retail” figures. Since these figures do not include sales of
food or beverages, they should not be included or used in the calculation regarding the
percentage of food and liquor sales, and they will not be in the future reports.
Probationary data review regarding sale of food: In review of the 2011 data for the probationary
period from March 2011 through August 2011, food sales for this establishment have been
increasing. The establishment has been cooperating with city staff during the probationary
period.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Report
Food/Liquor Sales from Catering
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill does not have a caterer’s permit at this time, and therefore
no catering sales were included in their reporting. As requested by Council at the June 27 Study
Session, below is further clarification regarding whether a liquor license is allowed to include
offsite catering sales in their food/liquor sales numbers.
MN Statute 340A.404 regulates caterer's permits as follows: The holder of a state issued caterer's
permit may sell liquor as an incidental part of a food service. A caterer's permit is auxiliary to
the primary on-sale license held by the licensee. The restrictions and regulations which apply to
the sale of intoxicating liquor on the licensed premises also apply to the sale under the authority
of a caterer's permit.
The following 8 St. Louis Park licensees hold a state caterer’s permit:
Byerly’s, Marriott Hotel, Kerasotes Showplace, Park Tavern, Rojo West, Timberlodge,
and TGI Fridays.
Each licensee was contacted by staff and all include their catering sales as part of the total
food/liquor year end sales, with the exception of Bylery’s who separate their catering
sales due to the high volume of weekly catering.
Crave Restaurant holds their caterer’s permit at their Bloomington location and also
include catering sales as part of their total sales reported to City of Bloomington.
City Ordinance Regulations
City Attorney Tom Scott will be in attendance at the meeting to assist with legal questions.
Below are sections of the St. Louis Park City Code regarding liquor licensing requirements and
regulations regarding food/liquor sales, ineligibility, revocation, suspension, civil fine, and
administrative penalties.
Section 3-70 (g) Ineligibility states no on-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued unless
at least 50% of the gross receipts of the establishment will be attributable to the sale of food.
This requirement shall be regulated as follows:
(1) Each on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee shall have the continuing obligation to
have at least 50 percent of gross receipts from the establishment during the
preceding business year attributable to the sale of food.
(2) New restaurant applicants must make a bona fide estimation that at least 50% of
the gross receipts from the sale of food and beverages of the establishment during
the first year of business will be attributable to the sale of food.
(3) The term “establishment” shall include the food and beverage portion of a
multiservice establishment. Financial records for the food and beverage portion
must be maintained separately from the records of the remainder of the
establishment.
(4) The term "sale of food" shall include gross receipts attributable to the sale of food
items, soft drinks and nonalcoholic beverages. It shall not include any portion of
gross receipts attributable to the nonalcoholic components of plain or mixed
alcoholic beverages, such as ice, soft drink mixes or other mixes.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Report
(5) The city may require the production of such documents or information, including,
but not limited to, books, records, audited financial statements or pro forma
financial statements as it deems necessary or convenient to enforce the provisions
of this section. The city may also obtain its own audit or review of such
documents or information, and all licensees shall cooperate with such a review,
including prompt production of requested records.
(6) In addition to other remedies that it may have available, the city may place the
license of any on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to
one year, when the sale of food is reported, or found to be, less than 50 percent of
gross receipts for any business year. During the probationary period, the licensee
shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings and take
other action that the city may require to increase the sale of food.
Sec. 3-73. Revocation, suspension and/or civil fine states the city council may suspend for up
to 60 days or revoke any liquor license or permit, or impose a civil fine of up to $2,000 for each
violation, or impose any combination of these sanctions, as provided in M.S.A. 340A.415, for
violation of any provision or condition or any other city ordinance or state law relating to
alcoholic beverages.
Sec. 3-74. Notice of hearing. Revocation or suspension of a license by the city council shall be
preceded by a public hearing conducted in accordance with M.S.A.14.57-14.70. The city council
may appoint a hearing examiner or may conduct a hearing itself. A notice of such hearing shall
be given to the violator at least 20 days prior to the hearing and shall include the time and place,
nature of charges, and penalty the city may impose for the violation.
Sec. 3-75. Administrative penalty. Prior to expiration of the 20-day notice period, the licensee
may stipulate to both the violation identified in the notice and an administrative penalty agreed to
by the city manager, in lieu of a hearing before the city council. The stipulation must be
approved by the city council and the administrative penalty must be completed within 30 days.
Other Cities Survey Information
Attached is a liquor license survey of surrounding cities indicating food/liquor ratio requirements
and information on how catering sales are regulated.
Options for Moving Forward
Take no further action
Extend probation to end of license term (March 1, 2012) and revisit this issue at licensee
renewal consideration in February 2012
Suspend license for up to 60 days (to be preceded by a public hearing)
Impose a civil fine of up to $2,000 (to be preceded by a public hearing)
Impose combination of suspension/civil fine (to be preceded by a public hearing)
Revoke license pursuant to MN Statutes (to be preceded by a public hearing)
Consider possible amendments to the ordinance regarding food/liquor sales. This option
could be undertaken in parallel with the other options noted above.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Report
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolution No.11-030 Approved February 22, 2011
Letter from Toby Keith’s dated June 16, 2011
Letter from Toby Keith’s dated September 9, 2011
Liquor License Survey of Other Cities
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Report
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report.Page 7
BOOMTOWN ENTERTAINMENT
Dba: Toby Keith’s I ♥ This Bar & Grill
6263 North Scottsdale Rd, Suite 145
Scottsdale, Arizona 85250
480.336.2451
September 9, 2011
Nancy Stroth
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park
Administration Department
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Nancy:
We at Toby Keith have taken a very proactive approach to insure we achieve the required ratio to
food and beverage sales. In my letter of June 16th we outlined the steps that we were taking to
achieve this ratio. We however, never introduced a Catering Operation to our business as we were
informed this would have no effect in determining or benefiting us in that regard.
I am pleased to submit our sales figures in the attached analysis from June through August 2011 as
required by the City Council. As you can see our constructive efforts have achieved a steady monthly
increase in food and non-alcohol sales to liquor sales. We are making every effort to continue with
this marketing approach to maintain our ratios in order to comply with the City Council Resolution.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me
at any time.
Sincerely,
PJ Lama
Philip J Lama
Chief Financial Officer
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report.Page 8
Liquor License Survey Sept 2011CITYTotal OFF Sale IntoxTotal ON-Sale IntoxTotal ON-Sale WineTotal Liquor Licensed EstablishmentsPopulation Catering Sales included in total salesOther limitationsFood % Liquor % NoneBlaine 8 21 3 52 57,186 _ _NoneN/A Restaurants not required to report salesBloomington 20 63 16 124 85,23840% 60%YES 60% liquor for past 10+ years with minimal issuesBrooklyn Center municipal 5 4 21 30,104 50% 50% NOBrooklyn Park 14 13 4 50 72,724 _ _ None N/A no more new on-sale south of Hwy 610, no requirement for food/liquor ratioEagan 16 31 9 76 64,206 50% 50% not sure limit to 37 on sale intox (statutory city)Eden Prairie municipal 28 16 58 60,797 50% 50% not sureEdina municipal 18 11 40 47,42560% 40%YESGolden Valley 5 11 5 24 20,371 _ _ None N/A no requirement for food/liquor ratioHopkins 8 7 5 25 17,500 50% 50% N/AMaple Grove 9 35 3 51 61,567 51% 49% not sureMinnetonka 12 21 8 46 51,499 50% 50% YES No limit but Council has discretion to deny for purposes of area and type of service.New Hope 6 5 1 12 20,824 50% 50% N/A Limit to 6 on-sale intox licenses, 7 off-sale Plymouth 15 20 10 64 70,57640% 60%YESSt. Louis Park 13 21 11 52 46,293 50% 50% YES catering sales included except for BylerysWoodbury 11 22 14 59 61,961 50% 50% not sure requires notarized compliance document 50/50 metFood/Liquor Ratio Requirement ON-Sale IntoxStudy Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Toby Keith’s Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report.Page 9
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Supplemental Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding Request from Hardcoat Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback on Hardcoat Inc.’s supplemental CAP funding request related to the
acquisition and renovation of the former Flame Metals property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support Hardcoat Inc.’s request for an additional $80,000 in financial assistance
thru the CAP so as to fully complete the renovation of the former Flame Metals building as
originally envisioned?
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 2010, the EDA entered into a Contract for Private Development with M & L
Anodizing Properties, LLC in which the EDA agreed to provide $420,000 through the CAP to
facilitate Hardcoat Inc.’s planned renovation/expansion of the former Flame Metals property (7301 -
7317 West Lake St.).
The Proposed Project
Hardcoat Inc, (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire the former Flame Metals property
located across the street to the south at 7317 W. Lake Street. The company plans to renovate the
building and site, construct a small addition, and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial
building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and
exterior have numerous building code deficiencies. The property’s current assessed value is $980,000.
Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock doors, new offices
and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment,
new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens, site amenities for employees, as well as the removal of
unsightly volunteer trees and brush. Plans also call for the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for
office/conference space on the north side of the building. Once the renovation/expansion is complete,
Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of the building. The balance will be
leased to a complementary business and provide Hardcoat with future expansion capacity. It is
estimated that the renovated property will have an assessed value of approximately $2,625,000; an
increase of $1,645,000.
Job Creation
At the time Hardcoat submitted its CAP application it had 14 employees. Since that time,
Hardcoat’s workforce has grown by three full-time and two part-time workers. Upon relocation
and new equipment installation, Hardcoat believes up to 25 employees could potentially be hired
in the next 5 years. Additional labor would be involved with the building renovation and small
addition. Other jobs would also be created when a tenant leases the balance of the building.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Supplemental Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding Request from Hardcoat Inc.
Request for Additional Financial Assistance
To date project financing has been secured through a combination of loans from Venture Bank
and the SBA 504 and 7A programs. However, securing this financing took longer than
anticipated and will cost more. This was due to the fact that in the midst of assembling the
project Hardcoat had to find a different lender. Fortunately, Hardcoat’s business has continued to
improve and, along with the EDA’s commitment, was able to secure the participation of Venture
Bank and the SBA. Unfortunately, Hardcoat incurred more than $69,000 in increased financing
fees to secure the loans.
Closing on the purchase of the former Flame Metals property has been delayed multiple times
and complicated by the presence of low level contamination on the site. Hardcoat needed to
secure No Association and No Further Action Determination Letters relative to these
contaminants prior to closing. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has jurisdiction
in this particular case and it required several rounds of additional soil sampling and analysis. The
MDA recently determined that it had sufficient environmental data to issue the No Association
letter. Hardcoat has been assured that the No Action Letter is forthcoming. The additional
testing, analysis, and agency review however resulted in the postponement of five scheduled
closings. Thus Hardcoat has yet to close on the property. The additional testing has, thus far, cost
Hardcoat in excess of $30,000.
The delays in closing have caused project costs to escalate. Some items within the original
project budget have increased substantially since they were originally bid. For instance, the cost
of construction (due to the price of steel, winter conditions, additional building repairs and other
price adjustments) along with additional architecture fees have increased project costs nearly
$89,000. In addition, Hardcoat is facing more than $300,000 in increased costs related to the
installation of new equipment as well as acid purification and waste treatment systems. A portion
of this cost resulted from an automatic 15% price increase due to not being able to place its order
by July 1.
To date total project costs (now in excess of $3.5 million) exceed the original cost estimate by
$515,208. Listed below is a comparison of the original project budget to the current cost
projections by expense category.
Expense Category Original Cost Revised Cost Budget Variance
Site acquisition/remediation $1,034,500 $1,158,279 +$123,779
Architecture/Design $20,300 $34,550 +$14,250
Construction $1,377,521 $1,452,099 +$74,578
Fixtures/Equipment/Construction $547,881 $850,482 +$302,601
Total $3,040,702 $3,555,910 +515,208
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Supplemental Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding Request from Hardcoat Inc.
Hardcoat remains committed to the proposed project and is willing to absorb the bulk of the
above expenses, yet cannot absorb them all. It would prefer to complete the improvements to the
building as originally envisioned and not have to scale back some of the more aesthetic (and
visible) aspects of the project. However, Hardcoat has reached its maximum principal loan
amount with its lender and is $80,000 short. The owner has already personally paid for an
additional $125,000 in expenses including some costs beyond those listed above (i.e. soft costs).
He is not in a position to provide more. Therefore, Hardcoat is seeking an additional $80,000 in
assistance through the CAP. Such assistance would offset 16% of the above costs.
The supplemental assistance of $80,000 would bring Hardcoat’s total CAP funding to $500,000.
Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis and added to the previously approved
forgivable loan with Hardcoat.
Proposed Funding Sources
The source of the CAP funds to assist Hardcoat are a combination of unallocated tax increment
generated by nine of the City’s TIF districts and tax increment generated from the increased
value of the former Flame Metals property. These funds would be disbursed from the
Development Fund. If the EDA were to agree to provide the supplemental funds to Hardcoat,
there would be approximately $1 million remaining to fund other projects.
A TIF district was created in conjunction with approval of the original CAP assistance for the
Hardcoat project. The Hardcoat TIF District is expected to generate approximately $190,000
over the 9-year term of the district. These funds will be used to partially reimburse the
Development Fund for the funds provided to Hardcoat. Thus, if the EDA were to agree to
provide Hardcoat the full $500,000, the net difference to the Development Fund would be
approximately $310,000.
Project Schedule
In a good faith effort, the current property owner, A & D Holdings LLC, has commenced some
of the renovation work on the building; work that would bring the building up to code regardless
of the purchaser. The cost of the work will be added to the building’s purchase price for which
Hardcoat will seek reimbursement. Hardcoat plans to close on the property as soon as all
remaining contingencies are satisfied which should occur within the next month. It would then
continue interior building renovations immediately thereafter. Exterior work and landscaping
will likely have to wait until next spring.
Next Steps
If the EDA supports Hardcoat’s supplemental funding request, staff would have an amendment to the
redevevolopment contract drafted for the EDA’s formal consideration in the coming weeks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the western part of the city and to move the
acquisition, renovation and expansion of the former Flame Metals property forward, it is
proposed that the EDA consider providing Hardcoat Inc. an additional $80,000 through the
Construction Assistance Program. The supplemental assistance would bring total project funding
to $500,000. Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis and added to the
previously approved forgivable loan with Hardcoat. The funds would derive from pooled tax
increment generated by the City’s various TIF districts; of which an estimated $190,000 would
be reimbursed from future tax increment generated from the Hardcoat TIF District.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Supplemental Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Funding Request from Hardcoat Inc.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Facilitating the renovation and expansion of the former Flame Metals building as proposed by
Hardcoat Inc. is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it promotes environmental
stewardship and green development.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
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 Budget Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is to assist with the Study Session discussion regarding
the 2012 Budget and to provide information for determining the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy to
be considered in December.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail?
Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to consider?
Does the City Council wish to continue with a 5.00% property tax levy increase from 2011
as its 2012 Final Property Tax Levy based on the tax and utility rate implications identified in
this report? Or, does the City Council wish to certify a lesser percentage change as its 2012
Final Property Tax Levy?
How would the City Council like staff to convey information to the community regarding the
proposed 2012 budget and property tax levy?
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 2011, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2012 Budget process. Council
agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2012 Budget Production Guidelines”
when preparing the 2012 Budget. Assumptions for the 2012 Budget included a pattern similar to
2010 and 2011; a levy increase, modest increase in other fees and charges where appropriate to
fit with business costs, maintain service delivery at current levels, hold expenditures flat if
possible with adjustments for some modest growth based on essential business needs, funding for
a wage and benefit contribution increase, utility rate increases, and continued long range
financial planning.
Based on the assumptions outlined, and discussion from the June 20th meeting, the City Council
was informed of an estimated overall 2012 levy increase of $947,380, or approximately 4.05% as
compared to the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy. From the preliminary budgets prepared by
departments, meetings with the City Manager and some adjustments after those meetings, the
difference between revenues and expenditures for the General and Park and Recreation Funds
was a revenue shortfall of $64,373. For 2012, the combined preliminary General and Park and
Recreation Fund expenditure budget is $29,765,137 as compared to $29,416,250 in 2011 or
approximately a 1.19% increase. This includes the cost of one additional police officer in our
Police Department (moving from 51 to 52 sworn officers).
Based on subsequent City Council study sessions on August 8th and August 22nd, the City
Council indicated it wanted to explore other possible initiatives for the 2012 Budget cycle and
consider possible increased funding for the Employee Benefits and Housing Rehabilitation
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
funds, resulting in a proposed 2012 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of approximately
5.00%. This preliminary levy change resulted in balanced General and Park and Recreation
Funds budgets and provides the City Council with approximately $123,000 of additional
revenue, as shown in Attachment 1, to address the items noted above or unexpected issues that
might come up between now and the end of the year. Attachments 2 and 3 provides some items
for the City Council to consider as discussed at the August 22, 2011 Study Session.
PROPERTY TAX LEVY
At the September 6, 2011 regular City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a 2012
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,830,726 which is an increase of $1,134,798, or an
approximate 5.00% increase from the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy. This levy is utilized to
support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, Park Improvement Fund,
Capital Replacement Fund, Pavement Management Fund and Debt Service.
The breakdown of the Preliminary Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart. It
is important to note that the bulk of the total levy increase is related to beginning to pay the debt
service on the fire station bonds:
2011 2012 Dollar Change Percent Change
Levy Preliminary From 2011 From 2011
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172 $20,337,797 $243,625 1.21%
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%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,695,928 $23,830,726 $1,134,798 5.00%
2012 UTILITY RATES
Utility Rates for 2012 were discussed with the City Council on September 26th. Staff was
directed to proceed with utility rate adjustments as presented during the Study Session. This
direction will help the utility funds be substantially sustainable in the long term based on current
assumptions for both operational and capital needs. The information on the following page
depicts what a sample customer’s utility bill is in 2011 and proposed for 2012.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
Estimated Quarterly Utility Bill
Actual 2011 and Proposed 2012
Household Size 4
Units per quarter 30
Solid Waste Service 60-gallon
Meter size 3/4 inch
Actual Projected Dollar Percent
Service Type 2011 2012 Change Change Notes
Water
Per unit rate - Tier 1 1.35$ 1.39$ 0.04$ 3.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Service charge 10.15$ 12.59$ 2.44$ 24.04% Change per PCE/Ehlers
State testing fee 1.59$ 1.59$ -$ 0.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Consumption 40.50$ 41.72$ 1.22$ 3.00% Change per PCE/Ehlers
Sewer
Service charge 12.54$ 13.04$ 0.50$ 4.00% Change per Ehlers
Consumption 72.90$ 75.90$ 3.00$ 4.12% Change per Ehlers
Storm Drainage
Service charge 15.00$ 15.50$ 0.50$ 3.33% Change per Ehlers
Bassett Creek Fee*-$ 1.60$ 1.60$ n/a Bassett Creek fee
Solid Waste (includes tax)59.94$ 61.14$ 1.20$ 2.00% Change per Long Range Plan
Total Bill without Bassett* 212.62$ 221.48$ 8.86$ 4.17%Not including BCWMC
Increase per quarter (dollars)8.86$
Increase per year (dollars)35.43$
* Since not all property owners would be charged this fee, it is not included in the dollar or percentage change in total bill.
POTENTIAL TAX IMPACTS BASED ON STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
The 2011 State Legislature repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit program and replaced it
with the Market Value Homestead Exclusion. This law will result in several changes at the local
level for residential homestead properties even if the City of St. Louis Park adopted the exact
same property tax levy as in 2011:
1) The State of Minnesota is no longer reducing total taxes through the Market Value
Homestead Credit program. The entire property tax levy will be paid by the
taxpayers.
2) The reduction in taxable value due to the Market Value Homestead Exclusion will
result in a higher City tax rate. With less taxable value in the city, the total same levy
as the prior year would still result in a higher City tax rate.
3) The reduction in taxable value shifts the relative burden of who pays, meaning the
shift is to other property types (C/I) and homes with higher values.
Estimated City Share of 5% Preliminary Property Tax Levy Increase for the 2012 Budget
As noted in the information in Attachment 6, the impact on the estimated City share of property
taxes, based on a 5% levy increase, differs widely based on the value of a person’s home. For
example, some property owners would see a decrease of about $17 per year, or approximately
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
2.6%, while other homeowners could see an increase of about $145 per year, or approximately
4.5%. 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.
Implications of Other Potential Property Tax Levy Adjustments
Also included in Attachments 4 and 5 for the City Council’s reference, is what the estimated City
share of property taxes would look like with a 0.00% and 4.46% levy change, respectively. The
implications for a 0.00% levy change would mean the estimated City share of property taxes
would see a decrease of approximately $27.00, or 4.2%, to an increase of about $81.00 or 2.5%,
depending on the value of a persons home. In order to achieve a 0.00% property tax levy
change, the budget would have to reduced by approximately $1.02 million. The implications of
a 4.46% levy change means the levy amount would balance the 2012 Budget, but not leave any
discretionary revenue for the City Council to consider other options without first reducing
another expenditure on a dollar for dollar basis. This would equate to an estimated City share of
property taxes changing from a decrease of approximately $20.00, or 3.1%, to an increase of
about $129.00 or 4.0%, again, dependent on the value of a person’s home.
Total Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2012 for Taxes and Utilities
Based on the information stated above, 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 as shown
in the table on the previous page, would experience an overall increase of less than $4.30 per
month or about $52.00 for the entire year with a 5.00% levy increase and utility rate adjustments.
Of this estimated $52.00 increase, approximately $35.00 would be attributed to utility rate
adjustments and approximately $17.00 would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes.
NEXT STEPS:
The proposed budget timeline for the remaining part of 2011 is as follows:
Budget Timeline:
October 11 Ongoing City Council study session discussion on budget.
October/November Additional City Council study session updates and discussions on budget,
Capital Improve. Plan, and Long Range Financial Mgmt. Plan as needed.
November 14 Final budget discussion with Council if needed, prior to Truth in Taxation
Public Hearing.
December 5 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
December 19 Council adopts 2012 Budget, final property tax levies, CIP and utility rates.
BUDGET COMMUNICATION MEASURES:
Staff desires input from the City Council on measures it would like staff to take to communicate
with the community regarding the proposed 2012 budget and levy. Measures staff has discussed
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion
included using the Park Perspective, web site, social media, cable, and a guest column from the
City Manager in the Sun Sailor and Patch.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Details provided in this report and in the attachments.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision is considered throughout the budgeting process and kept at the foreground of budgeting
decisions.
Attachments: 1. Summary of Revenues and Expenditures – Gen and Park & Rec. Funds
2. Items for Council to Consider From August 22, 2011 Study Session
3. Payments Budgeted to Non-Profits in 2011 and 2012
4. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 0.00%
5. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 4.46%
6. Residential Estimated City Share of Property Taxes – 5.00%
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
Actual Adopted Proposed Change Final to '12
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,063,990$ 15,426,072$ 16,337,236$ 911,164 5.91%
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$ 23,731,319$ 447,532 1.92%
Appropriations 24,193,728$ 23,283,787$ 23,462,579$ 178,791 0.77%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations (814,447)$ (0)$ 268,740$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ - 0.00%
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$ 6,156,863$ 24,401 0.40%
Appropriations 6,063,029$ 6,132,462$ 6,302,558$ 170,096 2.77%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 82,791$ 0$ (145,695)$
Grand Totals:29,525,101$ 29,416,249$ 29,888,182$ 471,932$ 1.60%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPENDITURES:123,045$
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2010 2011 2012 Dollar % Change
and Activity Actual Adopted Proposed Change Final to '11
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,433,480$ 1,542,570$ 1,683,791$ 141,221 9.15%
Communications & Marketing 241,464 294,470 266,140 (28,330) -9.62%
Community Outreach 81,531 88,515 8,185 (80,330) -90.75%
Information Resources 1,384,231 1,394,226 1,510,099 115,873 8.31%
Accounting/Assessing 1,050,898 1,113,106 1,158,924 45,818 4.12%
Community Development 1,019,115 1,094,186 1,081,025 (13,161) -1.20%
Facilities Maintenance 952,859 1,114,550 1,085,228 (29,322) -2.63%
Total General Government 6,163,578 6,641,622 6,793,392 151,769 2.29%
Public Safety:
Police 6,986,667 7,208,512 7,301,443 92,931 1.29%
Fire Protection 2,989,548 3,164,344 3,357,431 193,088 6.10%
Inspectional Services 1,729,152 1,863,296 1,897,320 34,024 1.83%
Total Public Safety 11,705,367 12,236,152 12,556,194 320,043 2.62%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 872,845 829,698 391,358 (438,340) -52.83%
Engineering 798,240 846,031 930,466 84,435 9.98%
Operations 2,575,146 2,550,285 2,611,170 60,885 2.39%
Total Public Works 4,246,231 4,226,014 3,932,993 (293,021) -6.93%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,171,301 1,239,230 1,283,477 44,248 3.57%
Recreation Center 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,468,976 26,529 1.84%
Park Maintenance 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,466,265 30,891 2.15%
Westwood 488,259 502,366 517,346 14,981 2.98%
Environment 366,889 371,325 375,269 3,944 1.06%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,258,156 1,141,721 1,191,225 49,503 4.34%
Total Park & Recreation 6,063,029 6,132,462 6,302,558 170,096 2.77%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 2,078,552 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 2,078,552 180,000 180,000 - 0.00%
Total General & Park Funds 30,256,757$ 29,416,250$ 29,765,137$ 348,887 1.19%
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Items for Council to Consider From the August 22, 2011 Study Session
Non-profit payments – Would the City Council like to fund non-profits in a different
amount than what was budgeted in 2011 or proposed in 2012? Include program name,
funding source and basic statement of program.
Response: Please see Attachment 3
Feasibility study for Park & Recreation Civic/Recreation Facilities – can some options be
given to Council on an estimated amount and recommendation on funding source for 2012?
(20 – 30 – 40,000?) This may be included in the preliminary levy option for Council.
Response: Set aside $25,000 for use of consultants (estimated) to assist, if needed, with a
feasibility study or other analysis/expenses. As a funding source, this is one of the items that
could be funded from an increase to the levy that is rounded up, for example, to 5%.
Trees: How do we get all the new trees watered that are planted? This includes trees on
boulevard properties that are to be watered by residents.
Response: We have a smaller truck with water but it is for flower gardens and would run out
quickly if we were watering mass quantities of trees. We would need to use our tanker truck.
Driving the tanker truck requires a CDL. Seasonal staff cannot drive this type of equipment per
our union contract. Since we lost a PSW with layoffs after Larry S. retired, we do not have staff
to do this. The need for watering would be spring, summer and fall. Additional seasonal staff
could help but again, they cannot drive the larger equipment. We could invest in the water
“gator” bags on all the boulevard trees. They help water the trees but need to be filled weekly.
We plant about 400 trees a year. Putting bags on all the trees would be approx. $2,000. That
would help, but again we need staff to fill them so we are back to an additional full time PSW to
drive the tanker truck. Adding one additional staff person with CDL is approximately $58,440.
- or -
We could consider contracting out the watering. We were able to achieve one estimate for
$15,000 for this service. This is only an estimate and would need further research.
CDBG: Provide listing of our programs and take time to anticipate what/how we might
fund such programs if CDBG funds are eliminated.
Response: Although there has been talk of future reductions, there doesn't appear to be any
suggestion that the program be eliminated, at least not in 2012. The initial CDBG funding
recommendation in the President's 2012 budget is for a slight increase from the amount
authorized in 2011. The 2011 budget authorized 3.336 billion. The recommendation in the
President's budget for 2012 is 3.684 billion. Should the proposed budget level be adopted for
2012, the City would most likely see our funding level restored to 2009 levels. That said, it
would be wise to be conservative for planning purposes. With the current budget issues facing
Congress, the federal funding proposals could certainly change resulting in a reduction to what is
currently proposed.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Items for Council to Consider From the August 22, 2011 Study Session
If there is a funding reduction, we will need to prioritize programs and projects historically
funded with CDBG dollars. Two core programs, the Emergency Repair Program and Low
Income Single Family Deferred Loan program are long standing programs that receive their
funding annually through CDBG. These programs promote housing preservation, repair and
rehab for extremely low income homeowners and receive approximately $80,000 to $100,000
per year. A minimal amount ($7,500) of CDBG has also been utilized the past few years to
support Park and Rec youth programming. The remainder of the annual funding allocation is
typically used to assist in financing low income multi-family housing rehab and low income
home ownership opportunities. Alternative funding sources for these activities would include
the Housing Rehab fund, the HRA Levy and the Parkshore TIF District, although, current
commitments in these funds would require further review to determine if there is adequate
funding to maintain programming at its current level or if there will be a need to prioritize
funding obligations.
Any other items initiatives the City Council would like to consider for the 2012 Budget?
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 9
Department orVendor NameExplanation/Description2011 Budget2012 ProposedCost CenterSt. Louis Park Community Band Donation500500 Adm. Srv. General fundCommunity Mediation Services Contract for free mediation services 4,300 4,300 Comm. Outrch Housing Rehab fund '12STEP Community Partners Program 40,000 40,000 Comm. Dev. Housing Rehab fund '12Teens Alone Contribution 2,000 2,000 Police General FundTeens Alone 5K Fun Run Support Staff 700 700 Parks - Org. Rec. General FundCornerhouse Law Enf. Partner/Child Abuse Srvs. 6,775 6,775 Police General FundCornerstone Advocacy Services 2009 Annual Award/Family Services 32,636 32,636 Police General FundNorthern Star Juvenile Diversion Juvenile Diversion Services 9,500 9,500 Police General FundReach for Resources Recreation inclusion services 17,108 17,108 Parks - Org. Rec. General FundTree Trust Summer work crew 1,800 1,800 Parks - Westwood General FundFriend of the Arts Operations 20,00020,000 Development Housing Rehab fund '12135,319$ 135,319$ City of St. Louis ParkPayments to Non-Profits2011 and 2012 proposedStudy Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: 2012 Budget DiscussionPage 10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
0.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Property Value 43.276 44.886 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
2011 2012
150,000 144,000 649.14 537.38 564.81 537.38 -27.43 -4.2%
200,000 193,000 865.52 777.11 797.17 777.11 -20.06 -2.3%
224,500 220,100 971.55 909.70 911.03 909.70 -1.33 -0.1%
300,000 292,500 1,298.28 1,263.92 1,261.90 1,263.92 2.02 0.2%
350,000 343,000 1,514.66 1,511.00 1,494.27 1,511.00 16.73 1.1%
400,000 396,000 1,731.04 1,770.30 1,726.64 1,770.30 43.67 2.5%
500,000 495,000 2,163.80 2,221.86 2,163.80 2,221.86 58.06 2.7%
600,000 594,000 2,704.75 2,771.71 2,704.75 2,771.71 66.96 2.5%
700,000 693,000 3,245.70 3,327.17 3,245.70 3,327.17 81.47 2.5%
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.
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points
will not experience these exact changes.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 11
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
4.46% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Property Value 43.276 45.521 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
2011 2012
150,000 144,000 649.14 544.98 564.81 544.98 -19.83 -3.1%
200,000 193,000 865.52 788.11 797.17 788.11 -9.07 -1.0%
224,500 220,100 971.55 922.57 911.03 922.57 11.54 1.2%
300,000 292,500 1,298.28 1,281.80 1,261.90 1,281.80 19.90 1.5%
350,000 343,000 1,514.66 1,532.37 1,494.27 1,532.37 38.10 2.5%
400,000 396,000 1,731.04 1,795.35 1,726.64 1,795.35 68.71 4.0%
500,000 495,000 2,163.80 2,253.29 2,163.80 2,253.29 89.49 4.1%
600,000 594,000 2,704.75 2,810.92 2,704.75 2,810.92 106.17 3.9%
700,000 693,000 3,245.70 3,374.24 3,245.70 3,374.24 128.54 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.
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points
will not experience these exact changes.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED CITY SHARE OF PROPERTY TAXES
5.00% PRELIMINARY LEVY INCREASE
FOR THE 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
Property Value 43.276 45.748 Estimated City Tax Dollar Percent
2011 2012 Tax Capacity Rate 2011 2012 Change Change
2011 2012
150,000 144,000 649.14 547.70 564.81 547.70 -17.11 -2.6%
200,000 193,000 865.52 792.04 797.17 792.04 -5.14 -0.6%
224,500 220,100 971.55 927.17 911.03 927.17 16.14 1.7%
300,000 292,500 1,298.28 1,288.20 1,261.90 1,288.20 26.29 2.0%
350,000 343,000 1,514.66 1,540.01 1,494.27 1,540.01 45.75 3.0%
400,000 396,000 1,731.04 1,804.30 1,726.64 1,804.30 77.67 4.5%
500,000 495,000 2,163.80 2,264.53 2,163.80 2,264.53 100.73 4.7%
600,000 594,000 2,704.75 2,824.94 2,704.75 2,824.94 120.19 4.4%
700,000 693,000 3,245.70 3,391.07 3,245.70 3,391.07 145.37 4.5%
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.
* These are estimated figures at particular price points. Homes at the price points
will not experience these exact changes.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: 2012 Budget Discussion Page 13
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff desires to discuss with the City Council the attached draft policy for use of the ParkAlert
Citizen Notification System. If Council is comfortable with the policy, as is or as modified, staff
proposes to bring the policy to the Council for formal adoption at Council’s October 17, 2011
meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council have a clear understanding of the ParkAlert Citizen Notification
System?
Does the Council need any other information regarding the ParkAlert Citizen
Notification System or its use from a policy perspective?
Does Council have any suggested changes to the attached draft use policy for
ParkAlert?
Is Council prepared to consider formal adoption of the ParkAlert Citizen Notification
System use policy at its October 17, 2011 regular meeting?
BACKGROUND:
In February 2011, Council received a report on the research and recommendations regarding a
citizen notification system (aka, Reverse-911). Based on Council’s review of that report, staff
pursued and concluded contract negotiations with Everbridge for use of its citizen notification
system. Staff indicated that it would return to Council with a draft use policy for Council
consideration. The purpose of this policy is to provide parameters within which the citizen
notification system would be used.
PROPOSED USE POLICY:
The attached draft policy sets out parameters for use of ParkAlert. It specifies the purposes of
ParkAlert, categories of notifications for which it could be used, who is authorized to manage the
system and initiate alerts, registrant contact paths, web site portal parameters, sources of message
receivers, and some minimal message content requirements. This policy is intended to provide a
general guideline that provides staff some common sense discretion while also defining
boundaries for when ParkAlert may or may not be employed.
Staff is requesting that Council address relevant policy and governance issues to ensure that
ParkAlert is used as Council intends. That is accomplished by reviewing and modifying the
attached draft policy.
Staff hopes that Council can provide sufficient direction such that Council can adopt its initial
use policy for this service at its October 17, 2011 meeting. Applicable provisions of the policy
can be implemented soon thereafter, especially with respect to the 2011 – 2012 snow season.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for this service (approximately $15,000 per year) are included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program for 2011 and beyond. It should be noted that the annual cost includes
unlimited City use of the citizen notification system, and use by staff for its own (mostly
emergency) notification needs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Use of a more robust Citizen Notification System is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic
Direction to be a connected and engaged community. And, the draft policy is leans toward an
opt-in approach to respect the privacy of individuals and businesses, and not create a spam-like
environment that could reduce system effectiveness. It is also important to emphasize that, while
ParkAlert is potentially very powerful, it is just another communication tool. Like other
communications tools, it is not intended to replace any policy provisions or satisfy official
notification requirements.
Attachments: Draft ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
ParkAlert (PA) Citizen Notification System Policy
Policy Statement
The City of St. Louis Park has implemented the ParkAlert Citizen Notification system to provide
mass communication in the event of an emergency or particular non-emergency event as noted in
this policy. ParkAlert is an additional communications tool, intended to be a courtesy to residents
and businesses in St. Louis Park. ParkAlert is not a replacement for any specific existing
communications tool or official form of notification. ParkAlert and its related components are for
exclusive use of and by the City of St. Louis Park. The notification system may be used to
provide pertinent information and instructions to City of St. Louis Park residents and businesses
through land line phones, cell phones, smart phones, text messaging, E-mail, and other devices.
ParkAlert is a web-based mass notification system that sends messages to devices using the
contact path / order configured by the receiving party until that party has confirmed message
receipt.
1.1 Reason For Policy
This policy establishes the proper use and testing of the ParkAlert system.
1.2 Who Should Read This Policy
City of St. Louis Park employees with the responsibility of ordering or sending out messages
using ParkAlert, and City Council members responsible for governance of the City of St. Louis
Park.
Overview
ParkAlert is an additional courtesy communications tool that will be used to convey information
for both emergency and selected non-emergency events. In the event of an emergency
(dangerous situation), the City of St. Louis Park may utilize ParkAlert to warn of impending
danger, or as a tool to be used during and/or after an event to communicate with those affected
by the emergency. Weather-related parking bans are likely to be the most common notification-
causing emergencies.
All relevant white pages-listed St. Louis Park phone numbers are contacted in the event of an
emergency, as are those who sign up via the registration portal on the City’s web site. Such
contact would typically begin as soon as practical after the proper authorizations have been given
and a message created and sent, 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. Here’s an important exception:
In the case of weather-related parking bans, notifications would be sent based on the time of day
or night, using a common sense approach. For example, notifications may be sent during the
daytime / early evening hours if the ban goes into effect then. On the other hand, if the forecast is
for the possibility of snow reaching three inches or more sometime during the later night or early
morning hours, a “reminder” notification may be sent earlier in the night. The notification would
remind people of the parking ban policy in the event snow reaches three inches or more. In this
case, it is a courtesy reminder, not an official declaration. Additional notifications may or may
not be sent based on subsequent conditions.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
Citizens of, and businesses and other organizations in, the City of St. Louis Park can also register
via the registration portal on the City’s web site for specific non-emergency events for which
they wish to receive alerts/reminders.
The non-emergency groups available for opt-in are:
Non-Weather Related Parking Bans
Significant Road Detours / Work
Significant City Service Interruptions
Other Meetings / Events
Such non-emergency contact would begin after the proper authorizations have been given and a
message created. Importantly, such non-emergency messages would typically be sent only in a
particular timeframe during the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., subject to the type of non-
emergency and other events (e.g., holidays, religious observances).
Messages sent using ParkAlert include the option of sending text and voice messages to multiple
devices in a contact path / order until message receipt is confirmed. The path and type of
message sent are controlled and configured by the citizen / business / organization using the
ParkAlert registration portal on the City of St. Louis Park web site. It is the responsibility of the
City staff member initiating the message to create the message.
Notification Groups
Following is a list of currently configured notification groups and their definitions:
EMERGENCY
Dangerous Situation
A predicted event or sudden unforeseen crisis that affects public safety and
requires immediate or predictable action. This may impact all or parts of
the City. Weather-related parking bans are a common example. Weather-
related parking ban policies remain in effect and provide the official
requirements with respect to weather events.
NON‐EMERGENCY
Non-Weather
Related Parking Ban
A non-weather related event causing the need to ban parking in all or
part(s) of the City.
Significant Road
Detours / Work
Construction involving roads, especially when detours or delays in traffic
flow are involved.
Significant City
Service Interruptions
This includes planned or unplanned interruptions in City services such as,
but not limited to, water; sewer; garbage, yard waste, or recycling
collection; parks; or Rec Center facilities.
Other Meetings /
Events
This category may include, but is not limited to, particular or special
council meetings and city project meetings, as determined by the City
Manager or designee.
NOTE: Notification groups may be added, deleted, or modified over time. However, to ensure
its long-term effectiveness, ParkAlert will typically not be used for routine meetings and annual
events.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
Policy
4.1 Proper Use of the ParkAlert Notification System
The ParkAlert Notification System may be used to convey information for both emergency
and non-emergency events. In the event of an emergency, the City of St. Louis Park may
utilize the ParkAlert Notification System to warn of impending danger or as a tool to be used
during and/or after an emergency event to communicate with those affected by the event.
Everyone listed in the white pages and those who register on the City’s web portal will be
sent emergency notifications. In this sense, ParkAlert leans towards being an opt-in system –
people who choose to register or be listed in the white pages get alerts. This respects those
who do not have their phone numbers published and minimizes spam-like effects.
For non-emergency events, citizens / businesses / organizations of the City of St. Louis Park
can register for specific categories of events about which they wish to receive
alerts/reminders. The available non-emergency groups are outlined in the table above. Note
that judgment will be used on whether or not to issue a notification on events in these
categories, based on their significance.
To help maintain system awareness and test for proper functioning of the notification system,
the City of St. Louis Park Chief Information Officer or Communications Coordinator will
work with the City Manager to create and send up to two emergency test messages per year
to the community, and other test messages to selected staff.
Another OPTION is to send non-emergency communications to gather information or public
opinion data using the polling functionality of the ParkAlert system. This method of
communication will be used sparingly to be respectful, or coupled with the tests, so as to not
create a spam effect in which citizens begin ignoring vital messages from the system.
4.2 Authorized Alert System Personnel
Employees of the City of St. Louis Park will be given rights to specific areas of the ParkAlert
Notification System. Under no circumstances shall the employees share their user name or
password with anyone else. Employees who share their log-in information with anyone will
immediately lose all rights to the system. The employee will also be subject to disciplinary
action up to and including termination of employment.
4.2.1 System Administration: System administration is the responsibility of the Chief
Information Officer. The Backup administrator is the Communications Coordinator. A
third administrator is the Web Coordinator / Applications Developer.
4.2.2 Emergencies (Dangerous Situation): In emergency situations, the Police Chief,
Fire Chief, Public Works Director, City Manager, and Deputy City Manager have the
authority to order or send emergency communications. As administrators of the ParkAlert
system, the City of St. Louis Park Chief Information Officer and Communications
Coordinator, or designee may send emergency messages, but only as directed by the
Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, City Manager, Deputy City Manager, or
designee.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
4.2.3 Non-Weather Related Parking Bans: The Public Works Director and designee
will have rights and authority to order or send notifications to the “Non-Weather Related
Parking Ban” group in the ParkAlert system. The timing and the circumstances that
determine when parking ban messages are sent are determined by Public Works Director,
the City Manager, or designee
4.2.4 Significant Road Detours / Work: The Public Works Director and designee will
have rights and authority to order or send notifications to the “Significant Road Detours /
Work” group in the ParkAlert system. The timing and the circumstances that determine
when Road Detours / Work messages are sent are governed by Public Works policy or
specific circumstances, the City Manager, or designee.
4.2.5 Significant City Service Interruptions: The City Manager, Deputy City Manager,
or designee shall have the rights to send or direct sending notifications to the “City
Service Interruptions” group in ParkAlert. This notification may include consultation
with relevant City staff or may be pre-delegated based on the situation (e.g., watermain
break, sewer backup).
4.2.6 Other Meetings / Events: The City Manager, Deputy City Manager, or designee
shall have the rights to send or direct sending notifications to the ”Other Meetings /
Events” group in ParkAlert. This may include consultation with relevant City staff.
4.3 Message Creation
Authorized ParkAlert System personnel have the responsibility to write and disseminate
the appropriate text / voice message to be sent. For consistency, simplicity, and to
minimize confusion, whenever possible, the sender shall follow the guidelines in section
4.3.1 Message Guidelines.
4.3.1 Message Guidelines
Messages shall be written in a manner to support automated text to speech translation.
Minimal or, preferably, no use of acronyms is ideal. All messages must contain an
appropriate lead-in, for example:
Non-emergency message lead-in “The City of St. Louis Park has an important
message for you. Please listen to the entire message before selecting an option. Thank
you.”
Emergency message lead-in “This is an emergency message from the City of St. Louis
Park. Please listen to the entire message before selecting an option.”
Test message lead-in “This is a test of the City of St. Louis Park emergency and non-
emergency notification system. Please listen to or read the entire message before
selecting an option. This is only a test. Had this been a real notification, you would
have received additional instructions. Again, this is only a test. Thank you.”
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: ParkAlert Citizen Notification System Policy
Lead-in messages are pre-programmed and do not need to be added in when creating a
new message. The lead-in messages are the responsibility of the City of St. Louis Park
Chief Information Officer and Communications Coordinator.
The follow-up core message sent using the ParkAlert System should be as brief as
possible and typically contain the following information:
The reason for the message / brief description of event
Any response required
Duration of emergency or event with dates and times where applicable
Methods to obtain further information
The name of the office sending the message
In emergency situations, when circumstances permit, authorized senders should review
messages with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, or designee prior to sending.
The City Manager, Deputy City Manager, or designee must be kept apprised of all
emergency situations and be informed of any communications that will be or have been
sent using the ParkAlert Notification System.
Meeting Date: October 10, 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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed. This report is meant solely to provide Council with an update on the
management and proposed budgets for the City’s six Special Service Districts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed 2012 budgets and property owner service charges for each service district
(attached) will be presented for Council action at the Oct 17th Council Meeting. Does Council
need any additional information regarding the Special Service Districts?
BACKGROUND:
History: In 1996, Council approved a resolution authorizing Special Service District (SSD) 1.
Since then, five additional service districts have been set up within the City (SSDs 1-4 are along
Excelsior Blvd, SSD 5 is along Park Place Blvd. near West End, and SSD 6 is along 36th St. near
Hoiggard Village). Except for a short trial in early 2000 when an outside firm was hired, City
staff has provided management services for the service districts. Since 2006, the City’s
Inspections Department has been providing management services for all six service districts.
Current: As of January, 2012, management services will be provided by Mark Hanson, Public
Works Operations Superintendent. Highlights of planned services or activities are provided below:
1) Sidewalk snow removal contracts for Districts 1 and 3 are already in place (Twin City
Outdoor Services will return as the contractor).
2) Banner replacement for Districts 1-4 is planned for 2012.
3) Continuation of the decorative “twinkle” lighting is planned for Districts 1-3. SSD 5 will
be reviewed for possible inclusion in 2012. The trees in the medians of SSD 4 are still too
small to support lights. SSD 6 does not have trees in the medians. Decorative lighting
cannot be installed until trees have grown to a sufficient size to accommodate the lighting.
4) All other services (irrigation and landscaping) will remain unchanged.
5) One of the commercial properties in SSD 1, 3601 Park Center Blvd, is being redeveloped
and will be classified as “residential.” As such, this property can no longer be assessed for
their share of the service charges. Staff is working with the property owner to determine if
an agreement to pay their share of the service charge can be written into the development
agreement or collected in some other manner.
6) Council should be aware that Special Service District #3 will expire at the end of 2012.
Staff will begin the renewal process in mid-2012 to extend the district for another 10 years.
Summary/Next Steps: Several steps are needed to complete the service district budget and
special assessment processes for 2012.
1) Staff mailed the budget and service charges to all property owners. A voting
memorandum requesting approval of budget and service charges was included with the
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6
financial documents. Of all property owners notified, only one response was received
opposing the proposed charges (SSD 3).
2) Staff also met with available service district property owners on October 4th to present the
2012 budget and service charges. Seven owners attended the meeting with all in
attendance voting to approve the budget and service charges as presented.
3) The public hearing for the 2012 budget and property owner service charges will occur at
the October 17th, 2011, council meeting.
4) During November the City certifies the 2012 assessments (service charges) to Hennepin
County.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Each Special Service District has its own budget with a reserve that is carried over from year to
year. The goal for each fund is to maintain a fund reserve equal to 50% of the budget. If fund
reserves are high in a district, the annual budget will not match the total service charge since
excess fund reserves will be used to offset (lower) the service charges. Property owners are used
to “fluctuations” in service charge amounts as they understand infrastructure services and repairs
cannot be accurately predicted (such as snow removal costs). A summary of budget highlights is
presented below:
SSD#1: No change in budget; significant increase in service charges (the 2011 service
charge was lowered by a large reserve offset only to be further depleted by expenses
associated with the extremely harsh winter).
SSD#2: No change in budget; small decrease in service charge due to a funds transfer to
lower the reserves.
SSD#3: No change in budget; moderate increase in service charges (the 2011 fund reserve
was lowered by expenses associated with the extremely harsh winter).
SSD#4: Slight increase in both budget and service charges since service needs and costs
will increase with the completion of the Excelsior Boulevard roadway and streetscape
project.
SSD#5: Slight increase in budget to accommodate the possibility of decorative “twinkle”
lights, but a small decrease in service charge due to a funds transfer to lower the reserves.
SSD#6: Slight increase in budget to ensure long term solvency as the district matures, but a
small decrease in service charge due to a funds transfer to lower the reserves.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
Attachments: SSD #1 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
SSD #2 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
SSD #3 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
SSD #4 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
SSD #5 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
SSD #6 – Proposed 2012 Budget and Service Charges
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Ann Boettcher, Inspectional Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #1
Business Unit: 2751 2011 2012
Adopted Budget Requested Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 00
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4621 SSD FEES (33,326)
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 (33,326)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5101 COLLECTED BY CITY
5102 CURRENT (50,000) (93,346)
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (50,000)(126,672)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (4,000)(1,500)
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS
MISC OTHER INCOME (4,000)(1,500)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (4,000)(1,500)
TOTAL REVENUES (54,000) (128,172)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,200 1,000
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 10,000 9,000
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER 3,600
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 11,200 13,600
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 29 4,500
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 4,500
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal 53,193 53,000
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 5,660 6,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 2,500 2,400
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 9,000 9,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 7,500 7,000
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 28,500 28,500
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 128
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 480 544
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep 4,000
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000
7301.890 SSD pedestrian
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 115,472 113,072
EXPENDITURES 126,672 126,672
OTHER EXPENSE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,672 126,672
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 3
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6Page 4
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #2
Business Unit: 2776 2011 2012
Adopted Budget
Requested
Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 0 0
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4621 SSD FEES (51)
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 (51)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT (46,534) (38,483)
5103 DELINQUENT
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (46,534) (38,534)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (200) (200)
MISC OTHER INCOME (200) (200)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (200) (200)
TOTAL REVENUES (46,734) (38,734)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 212 200
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,710 4,000
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER 3,000
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 3,922 7,200
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 53 2,000
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,000
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 2,968 3,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 1,060 1,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 5,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 5,000 5,000
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 20,150 21,000
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 136
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 165 198
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep 4,240
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000
7301.890 SSD pedestrian 1,866
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 42,612 39,334
EXPENDITURES 46,534 46,534
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,534 46,534
NET BUDGET BALANCE (Revenues-Expenditures)(200)7,800
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 5
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6Page 6
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #3
Business Unit: 2781 2011 2012
Adopted Budget
Requested
Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 00
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4621 SSD FEES (1,211)
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 (1,211)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT (42,898)(54,389)
5103 DELINQUENT
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (42,898)(55,600)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (1,100)(500)
MISC OTHER INCOME (1,100)(500)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (1,100)(500)
TOTAL REVENUES (43,998) (56,100)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 500 500
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,300 4,400
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER 2,400
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 4,800 7,300
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 50 2,500
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal 28,500 28,500
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 7,000 6,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 2,400 2,400
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 13,000 12,500
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 127
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 240 273
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep 1,000
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000
7301.890 SSD pedestrian 2,000
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 58,800 56,300
EXPENDITURES 63,600 63,600
OTHER EXPENSE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 63,600 63,600
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 7
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6Page 8
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #4
Business Unit: 2791 2011 2012
Adopted Budget Requested Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 00
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4621 SSD FEES (428)
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 (428)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT (11,827)(14,236)
5103 DELINQUENT
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (11,827)(14,664)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (1,300)(700)
MISC OTHER INCOME (1,300)(700)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (1,300)(700)
TOTAL REVENUES (13,127) (15,364)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,000 1,000
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,700 4,500
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER 600
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 3,700 6,100
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 50 2,500
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 2,000 2,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 1,500 1,500
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 5,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 3,500 3,500
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 16,000 16,000
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 50 50
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 145 164
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI 1,850
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep 1,850
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE
7301.890 SSD pedestrian 1,800
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 34,395 32,564
EXPENDITURES 38,095 38,664
OTHER EXPENSE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 38,095 38,664
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 9
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2012 Service Charge
Proposed Actual
2012 2011
PAR Service Service
NO. PID # Owner Charge Charge
1 2111721320022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White 279 285
2 2111721320021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC 345 353
3 2111721320006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Joseph Hendrickson & Lisa Roberts 562 574
4 2111721230100 6011 Excelsior Blvd How Enterprises, Inc 554 567
5 2111721230097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation 268 275
6 2111721240195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Dys Properties 734 751
7 2111721240185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC 704 720
8 2111721240209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc. 35 35
9 2111721240208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP 239 244
10 2111721240161 5801 Excelsior Blvd Hentges Properties, Inc. 276 282
11 2111721240193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc 624 639
12 2111721240141 5707 Excelsior Blvd Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good 475 486
13* 2011721410009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Creekside 2,028 0
14* 2011721140026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Asbury Methodist Hospital 1,074 0
15** 6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd 1,541 1,577
16 2111721230130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co. 306 313
17 2111721230155 6100 Excelsior Blvd James & Laurene Meger 213 218
18 2111721230128 6006 Excelsior Blvd Stephen J. Carney 154 157
19 2111721230127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Himmelman Properties 296 303
20 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park 428 439
21 2111721230011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard Criley 210 215
22 2111721230010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Gerald B. Frederick 99 101
23 2111721230156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner 518 530
24 2111721240083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Speedway Superamerica, LLC 469 480
25 2111721240067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co 396 405
26 2111721240066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC 338 345
27 2111721240040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Erickson Petroleum Corp 597 610
28 2111721240202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer 367 376
29 2111721240019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Payday America Inc. 535 547
14,664 $11,827
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2012 2011
2111721320133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 RE 1 LLC $90 $91
2111721320134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $94 $95
2111721320135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $91 $92
2111721320136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $102 $103
2111721320137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $87 $88
2111721320138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $91 $92
2111721320139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Unite Rope Holland Dist $119 $120
2111721320140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $105 $106
2111721320141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $96 $97
2111721320142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $89 $90
2111721320143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $98 $99
2111721320144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Lgh Properties LLC $88 $89
2111721320145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $94 $95
2111721320146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $85 $86
2111721320147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 Lgh Properties LLC $124 $125
2111721320148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $88 $89
$1,541 $1,577
Notes:
* The Excelsior Blvd construction project is expected to be completed this year, so these properties will be charged
for the first time in 2012.
** Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1) The proposed 2012 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2) The 2012 budget is $38,664 but the service charge is only $14,664 because $24,000 was transferred
Address
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 10
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #5
Business Unit: 2796 2011 2012
Adopted Budget
Requested
Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 00
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4618 COST REIMBURSEMENT
4618.527 SSD
4621 SSD FEES
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT (15,000)(12,698)
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (15,000)(12,698)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (200)(200)
MISC OTHER INCOME (200)(200)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (200)(200)
TOTAL REVENUES (15,200) (12,898)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 500 500
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,000 2,000
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 2,500 2,500
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 50 3,250
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 3,250
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 5,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 3,000 3,000
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 9,000 9,000
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 200 135
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 80 113
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI 1,300 1,300
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,400
7301.890 SSD pedestrian
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 23,880 25,198
EXPENDITURES 26,380 27,698
OTHER EXPENSE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FE
MISC OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL OTHER EXPENSE 00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 26,380 27,698
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 11
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6Page 12
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
2012 Budget
Department: Special Service District #6
Business Unit: 2811 2011 2012
Adopted Budget Requested Budget
REVENUES
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES
4016 PENALTIES/INTEREST
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 00
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
4621 SSD FEES (1,527)
4621.530 SSD - User Fees
4621.531 SSD - Dept Fees
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 (1,527)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
5102 CURRENT (18,000)(15,128)
REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS (18,000)(16,655)
OTHER INCOME
MISC OTHER INCOME
8101 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (100)(100)
MISC OTHER INCOME (100)(100)
TOTAL OTHER INCOME (100)(100)
TOTAL REVENUES (18,100) (16,755)
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 400 400
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,500 3,700
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 OTHER
6303.680 SSD -Banner replacement
SUPPLIES 2,900 4,100
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SE 50 2,500
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500
6630 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI
6630.772 SSD - snow removal
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/r 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation servi 3,300 3,300
6630.776 SSD decorative install 3,500 3,500
6630.777 SSD - Landscape servic 9,000 9,000
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 150 150
INSURANCE
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURA 80 105
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
7205 BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7207 OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVI 1,000
7207.880 SSD infrastructure rep 1,000
UTILITIES
7301 ELECTRIC SERVICE
7301.890 SSD pedestrian
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 21,580 21,555
EXPENDITURES 24,480 25,655
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,480 25,655
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6 Page 13
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2012 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges - Special Service Districts No. 1-6Page 14
Meeting Date: October 10, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the current status of redevelopment projects in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The attached report is meant to keep the EDA and City Council informed on a quarterly basis as
to the status of various redevelopment projects in the city to which the EDA &/or City is a party.
It is also meant to apprise city officials of any anticipated actions or issues relative to
corresponding redevelopment contracts.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development & Planning Assistant
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 1 of 6
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Former Bikemasters Bldg Renovation
(CKJ Properties, LLC)
18,000 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 98% leased
Building renovation complete.
Tenant improvements nearly
complete. One office space remains
to be leased
Pending Contract Actions:
Development Contract executed. Building renovation per Development Contract complete. CAP loan
disbursed in the amount of $70,000.
Former Flame Bldg Renovation
(Hardcoat Inc)
33,600 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 Seeking
tenant for
10,000 SF
Expect to close on property and
commence building renovations fall
2011. Work on building exterior and
landscaping to be completed spring
2012.
Pending Contract Actions:
Contract executed. Hardcoat has submitted a supplemental funding request for $80,000 which would
require a contract amendment.
Wooddale Catered Living
(Greco Development)
115 senior assisted living rentals 3/31/2012 0% leased
10,000 SF retail space 3/31/2012 0% leased
Construction underway
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring contract compliance. Grant disbursements will begin in fall.
Ellipse on Excelsior
(Bader Development)
132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 100%
leased
16,394 SF mixed used bldg 3/1/2011 100%
leased
Building completed. Commercial
spaces leased. Tenants include:
Tu’s Nails, Partners in Pediatrics,
Mill Valley Kitchen and a physical
therapist.
Pending Contract Actions:
Developer exercised the option to lease 3924 Excelsior Blvd on a month to month basis. Given the
developer has achieved its lease up goals, staff is in the process of conducting the look back for the
EDA’s provision of TIF.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 2
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 2 of 6
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
The West End
(Duke Realty)
350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 80% leased
Building completed, seeking tenants
Parmida Home-home furnishings,
11,000 sq. ft. signed for south end.
28,00 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 60% leased Baker & Associates leased 20,122 sf
of office space.
120 unit apt. 12/31/2016 0% leased Construction anticipated 2011
1.1 million SF Class A office
space
6/1/2021
0% leased
Construction will likely occur in the
next few years once the office mkt
recovers and sufficient tenant
commitments are secured.
Pending Contract Actions: An Amended & Restated Redevelopment Contract and a single TIF Note
were approved 5/19/10. Redeveloper has requested the TIF Note be reissued as two separate Notes;
this will require EDA action.
Melrose Eating Disorders Institute
(Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital)
3-story 67,000 SF medical bldg 6/30/2009
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Lake St Office Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
4.000 SF medical office building 12/31/2009 100%
leased
Building completed, Twin Cities
Vein & Laser is the tenant.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED on 2/10/11.
Highway 7 Corporate Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 90% leased Building completed. Expect
remaining space to be leased soon.
Pending Contract Actions:
None. The long term future of the Purple parking lot is currently subject to SWLRT planning and the
Gold parking lot is subject to Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange planning.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 3
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 3 of 6
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Hoigaard Village
(Union Land II Dunbar Development )
“Harmony Vista” – 78 units,
25,000 SF retail 2/28/2008 90% leased
70 % leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 94% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
“The Adagio” – 56 units 12/31/2011 0% leased
“Melody Row” – 20 townhomes 12/31/2011 0% leased
Developer seeking financing.
Townhomes several years away.
Pending Contract Actions:
Redeveloper plans to speak to the EDA this fall regarding updated plans for The Adagio building and
the townhomes.
Brookside Lofts
(Master Dev & Foundation Land)
27-unit loft condo building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
14-unit townhouse building 12/31/2006 100% sold Building completed
5 single family houses 12/31/2006 5 sold 5 houses completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Aquila Commons
(Stonebridge Dev)
106 unit senior housing
cooperative 12/31/2007 85% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Given the number of original units which remain unsold the Redeveloper has requested that the EDA
reconsider asset limitations in the Redevelopment Contract.
Village In The Park
(Rottlund Homes)
78 Townhomes 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
66 loft-style condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
60 senior condominiums 6/1/2007 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF Note paid off February 1, 2010.
Edgewood Business Center
(Real Estate Recycling)
79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100%
leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed out with DEED on 9/23/10.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 4
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 4 of 6
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Wolfe Lake Professional Center
(Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc)
2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 92% leased Building completed, seeking tenants
1-story, 10,038 SF commercial
“West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 %
leased Building completed and full
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Commons East
Excelsior & Grand
(TOLD Development)
Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF
retail space 7/1/2003 Building completed
Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500
retail space 4/30/2006 Building completed
Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235
SF retail space 4/1/2006 Building completed
Phase NW – 96 condos, up to
5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007
Apts 98%
occupied.
Condos
100% sold.
Retail 100%
leased. Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Fern Hill
(Park Land Company)
30 condos & 11,200 SF
commercial space 12/1/2001 100% sold
& leased Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None
Mill City – LA Oaks
(MSP Real Estate)
200 mkt rate apartments 6/1/2002 99.5%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 5
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 5 of 6
Project
(Developer)
Required
Completion
Date
Percent
Sold &/or
Leased
Current Project Status
Zarthan & 16 Street
(CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes)
Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed
Marriott TownePlace Ste-107
units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed
86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% sold Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
None.
Park Center
(Silver Crest Properties)
45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100%
occupied Building completed
Pending Contract Actions:
Monitoring Redeveloper’s adherence to renter income restrictions as specified in Contract.
Victoria Ponds
(SVK Development)
72 duplex townhomes 12/1/2002 100% sold Buildings completed
Pending Contract Actions:
TIF district to expire after last developer payment on 2/1/13.
PNMC – Phase II
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
49,310 SF medical office 5/7/2001
100%
occupied by
PN
Building completed
50,690 SF medical office 12/31/2006 Not built PN paid EDA financial settlement
45,000 SF medical office 12/31/2010
Pending Contract Actions:
Staff is working with Park Nicollet on a settlement to address Redeveloper’s obligations to construct
Phase II under the Redevelopment Contract. Such a settlement will require a Third Amendment to the
Contract which would be scheduled for discussion in study session.
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 6
Redevelopment Project and EDA Contract Status Report
October 2011
Page 6 of 6
Study Session Meeting of October 10, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 3rd Quarter 2011 Page 7