HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/04/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
APRIL 19, 2010
6:00 p.m. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD MEETING – Council Chambers
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of April 5, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (Bader
Development) and Easement Agreement for Common Driveway.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the Resolution approving the First Amendment
to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC and Easement Agreement.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Caring Youth Day Proclamation.
2b. Recognition of Board and Commission Members
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes of April 5, 2010
3b. City Council Minutes of April 5, 2010
Meeting of April 19, 2010
City Council Agenda
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the
Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolutions awarding the sale of:
• Approximately $3,125,000 Taxable G.O. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds,
Series 2010A; and
• Approximately $5,985,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2010B
8b. Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the preliminary and final
plat of the plat named “Dental Office Addition”.
8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion
Systems (WECS).
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), and set the
second reading for May 3, 2010.
8d. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to electronic signs and minor
changes regarding bufferyards and outdoor dining areas.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to electronic signs, bufferyards and outdoor dining areas and
set the second reading for May 3, 2010.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of April 19, 2010
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. To Enter into a delegation agreement with MDH for continuing to provide Environmental
Health Services
4b. Approve Designate Valley Paving Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution
of contract with the firm in the amount of $1,005,620.31 for the 2010 Local Street
Rehabilitation Project – Area 6, Project No. 2009-1000
4c. Approve an amendment to the City’s Urban Reforestation Policy to incorporate the
treatment of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) as an allowable use of the Land Sale Proceeds
4d. Adopt Resolution approving relocation of polling place for Precinct 17 located in Ward 4
from Eliot Community Center to Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
4e. Approve the 2010 Neighborhood Grants
4f. Adopt Resolution ordering the abatement of the hazardous building located at 3317 Texas
Avenue South
4g. Approve Change Order #4 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
3129 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0176
4i. Adopt Resolution of the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, recognizing the
contributions of and expressing appreciation to David Klumpner
4j. Approve for Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
4k. Approve for Planning Commission Study Session Minutes March 17, 2010
4l. Approve for Parks and Recreation Advisory Minutes January 20, 2010
4m. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4n. Approve for Housing Authority Minutes March 10, 2010
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 5, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross,
Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy Executive Director (Ms. Gohman),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of March 1, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Omodt, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Minutes April 5, 2010
7a. Termination of Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson
Builders) EDA Resolution No. 10-04
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated that Anderson Builders had planned to build
a two story, 15,000 square foot office building at 3340 Republic Avenue and on October 15,
2007, the EDA approved a contract for the redevelopment of the property. He stated that
the developer has informed the City he has been unable to break ground due to a lack of
tenants and financing commitments; as a result, Section 9.1 of the contract states that failure
to commence or substantially complete construction of the project constitutes an Event of
Default. He explained that a remedy for the Event of Default is that the EDA is entitled to
terminate its obligations under the contract. He stated that because the EDA already
extended the contract once and it appears the developer is unable to fulfill its obligations, it
is appropriate for the EDA to terminate the contract and release each other from further
performance. He added that no funds from the EDA were disbursed to the developer and
unless the contract is terminated, the funds stipulated for this project will be indefinitely
encumbered, thus limiting its use elsewhere. He noted that the developer has no practical
remedy to cure the default and has executed a release which terminates the relationship
between the parties and releases each party from all obligations.
Commissioner Santa asked if tonight’s action would preclude future action on the part of the
developer should the economy turn around.
Mr. Hunt stated that Mr. Anderson would be entitled to come back to the EDA and request
a similar type of arrangement with the EDA.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-04 approving the Termination of Contract Agreement and Release
between the EDA and Oak Hill 7100 LLC.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications – None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April 3, 2010 through April 16, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:04:14R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
5,000.00
Report Totals 5,000.00 EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 5a) Subject: Vendor ClaimsPage 2
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (Bader Development)
and Easement Agreement for Common Driveway.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with
Ellipse on Excelsior LLC and Easement Agreement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the proposal of a Common Driveway between the Ellipse on Excelsior
property and 3924 Excelsior Blvd. as specified in the proposed First Amendment and Easement
Agreement?
BACKGROUND:
On February 2, 2009 the EDA and Bader Development (“Redeveloper”) entered into a Redevelopment
Contract in which the EDA pledged Available Tax Increment to reimburse the Redeveloper for certain
extraordinary costs in connection with the development of a mixed-use retail and residential facility
known as the Ellipse on Excelsior on the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
On November 12, 2009 the EDA purchased the property next door located at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard (“former American Inn property” and now “EDA Property”) with the intent to redevelop
the property.
For various reasons the Redeveloper has requested that the EDA consider the construction of a common
driveway between the Redevelopment Property and the EDA Property (the “Common Driveway”) thus
providing access to both. The shared driveway concept was shared with the EDA in a written report
for the February 22, 2010 study session.
As proposed, a realigned driveway entrance would be constructed at the southwest side of the Ellipse
development thereby shifting the opening in the Excelsior Boulevard median approximately 40 feet
to the northeast. Two existing accesses on the EDA property would be eliminated, and the existing
driveway on the Ellipse property would be moved approximately 15 feet south of the current
proposed location. A 30-foot cross-easement for the shared driveway is required. In order for the
proposed common driveway to have full access to Excelsior Boulevard the existing median opening
(turn lane) on Excelsior Boulevard will have to be moved 30-40 feet closer to the Excelsior
Blvd./France Avenue intersection. Hennepin County has approved the relocation of the median
opening.
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
The proposed common driveway would be temporary so as to avoid disturbing the contaminated
soils on the former motel site. This driveway will run approximately 15 feet on both properties. A
permanent joint driveway would be constructed as part of the cleanup and redevelopment of the
EDA property. That driveway will likely run the length of the adjoining properties.
The neighborhoods to the north and south of the properties have been informed of the proposed
common driveway and staff has not received any comments.
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
A single driveway serving both sites has the following benefits:
1. Consolidation of three curb cuts into one full access intersection will provide greater traffic
and pedestrian safety and full vehicle access to both sites.
2. A shared access would enhance the pedestrian access and site design on the Ellipse property.
Less space would be needed for the driveway and there would be room to add a sidewalk and
green space on the southwest side of the building.
3. The concept improves the development opportunity for the EDA’s property. The common
drive leaves more space for development on the site as less of the property would be
consumed for a full driveway. More space provides more options for building placement as
well as parking. A shared access would also allow for internal circulation between the EDA
property and the Ellipse on Excelsior which is recommended in France Ave and Excelsior
Boulevard Development Guidelines.
4. The France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines call for a full access
drive for the two sites on Excelsior Boulevard. The Guidelines state that a full common
access is the best solution to handle the traffic on Excelsior Boulevard and to protect the
neighborhood from development traffic. Full access directly to and from Excelsior Blvd
should reduce traffic using the France Ave. access.
Proposed First Amendment
To formalize the proposed Common Driveway, the parties have agreed to enter into a First
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment. The proposed terms and conditions of the
Amendment are listed below.
1. The Redeveloper and EDA will jointly share the costs of engineering the common Driveway.
The Redeveloper is responsible for construction costs associated with the temporary
common driveway. The Redeveloper and EDA will jointly share all costs of changing the
Excelsior Boulevard median. The Redeveloper is solely responsible for the cost of any
maintenance and repair of the temporary common driveway.
2. The parties agree that at such time as the EDA Property is sold to a third-party redeveloper
for redevelopment, such third-party redeveloper will be solely responsible for the cost of
constructing the permanent common driveway between the two properties. The third-party
redeveloper and the Redeveloper shall be jointly responsible for the ongoing maintenance
and repair of such permanent common driveway.
3. The parties agree to enter into an easement agreement encumbering the EDA Property and
the Redevelopment Property for access by both parties, their guests and invitees onto the
EDA Property and the Redevelopment Property (the “Access Easement Agreement”). The
Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the EDA for all costs related to negotiating, drafting, and
approval of the Access Easement Agreement.
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
4. The EDA grants to the Redeveloper the temporary use of the EDA Property solely for
customer parking purposes related to the Redeveloper’s marketing of the Ellipse project.
Such parking is authorized from May 1 through September 1, 2010, conditioned upon: the
Redeveloper obtaining a temporary Certificate of Occupancy from the City by July 1, 2010
for at least one model housing unit within the Ellipse project, that Redeveloper provides
proper signage limiting such parking, and that the Redeveloper indemnifies the EDA for any
claims arising from its use of the EDA’s property,
5. Except as amended by the Amendment, the Redevelopment Contract shall remain in full
force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the EDA for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the EDA in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of
the Amendment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA’s share of the cost of engineering the Common Driveway and the changes to the Excelsior
Blvd median are estimated to be $30-40,000 with the source of funding being the Development
Fund. As outlined, any remediation of the EDA’s property is avoided until it is redeveloped. The
future cost of the permanent driveway and remediation will be part of the negotiation with the
future third-party redeveloper of the former American Inn property. Costs associated with the
remediation of the EDA property will likely be eligible for grants from other agencies.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolution of approval
First Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Easement Agreement
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-_______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ELLIPSE ON
EXCELSIOR LLC AND AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT
RELATED TO SUCH FIRST AMENDMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1791 (the “TIF
Act”), made up of certain property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”) to be developed
by Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (the “Redeveloper”).
1.02. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of February 2, 2009 (the “Agreement”), whereunder the Authority pledged
Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the
Redeveloper in connection with the development of a mixed-use retail and residential housing facility
on the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.03. The Redeveloper has requested and the Authority has agreed to the construction of a
common driveway providing access to both the Redevelopment Property and the adjacent parcel
owned by the Authority. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to
the Agreement (the “First Amendment”) to modify certain provisions of the Agreement, and to
execute an Easement Agreement (the “Easement Agreement”) to memorialize the parties’
undertakings pursuant to the First Amendment.
Section 2. First Amendment and Easement Agreement Approved.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the document by such officials shall
be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to
execute, on behalf of the Authority, the First Amendment.
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
2.02. The Easement Agreement as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the document by such
officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director are hereby
authorized to execute, on behalf of the Authority, the Easement Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
April 19, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) is dated
as of April 19, 2010, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and ELLIPSE ON
EXCELSIOR LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
RECITALS
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City.
B. The Authority has established the Ellipse on Excelsior Tax Increment Financing
District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as
amended, made up of the area to be developed by the Redeveloper (the “Redevelopment Property”) and
certain other property within the Project.
C. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of February 2, 2009 (the “Contract”), whereunder the Authority pledged
Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the
Redeveloper in connection with the development of a mixed-use retail and residential facility on the
Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
D. On November 12, 2009, the Authority purchased the property at 3924 Excelsior
Boulevard (the “Authority Property”) which adjoins the Redevelopment Property. The Redeveloper has
requested and the Authority has agreed to the construction of a common driveway providing access to
both the Redevelopment Property and the Authority Property (the “Common Driveway”).
E. To memorialize the terms and conditions of construction of the Common Driveway
and related matters, the parties have agreed to modify certain terms and conditions of the Contract
as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties
hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment of Section 1.1. Section 1.1 of the Contract is amended to add the following
definitions:
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
“Access Easement Agreement” has the meaning provided in Section 4.9(c) hereof.
“Authority Property” means the property so described in Schedule A hereof;
“Common Driveway” means the temporary common driveway to be constructed over a portion of
the Authority Property and the Redevelopment Property as depicted in the site plan attached hereto as
Schedule H, allowing access to both the Redevelopment Property and the Authority Property and the
improvements thereon.
2. Addition of Section 4.9. The Contract is amended to add a new Section 4.9, which
provides as follows:
Section 4.9. Common Driveway. (a) The Redeveloper shall construct a Common
Driveway over that portion of the easterly fifteen (15) feet of the Authority Property and the
westerly fifteen (15) feet of the Redevelopment Property as depicted in the Site Plan attached hereto
as Schedule H, for the use and enjoyment of owners, residents and invitees of the Minimum
Improvements on the Redevelopment Property and of the Authority Property. The Authority and
Redeveloper shall be jointly responsible for the cost of engineering the Common Driveway and the
cost of engineering and construction of any changes to the median on Excelsior Boulevard. The
Redeveloper shall be solely responsible for the construction cost of the Common Driveway and for
the cost of any maintenance and repair of the Common Driveway.
(b) The parties agree that at such time as the Authority Property is sold to a
third-party redeveloper for redevelopment, such third-party redeveloper shall be solely responsible
for the cost of constructing a permanent common driveway serving the Minimum Improvements
on the Redevelopment Property and any future development on the Authority Property. The third-
party redeveloper and the Redeveloper shall be jointly responsible for the ongoing maintenance and
repair of such permanent common driveway.
(c) The parties shall enter into an access easement agreement encumbering the
Authority Property and the Redevelopment Property for access by both parties, their guests and
invitees onto the Authority Property and the Redevelopment Property (the “Access Easement
Agreement”). The Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the Authority for all reasonable out-of-pocket
costs related to negotiating, drafting, and approval of the Access Easement Agreement, in the
manner provided in Section 3.7 hereof. Such reimbursement shall occur within thirty (30) days
after delivery by the Authority to the Redeveloper of written evidence of actual costs incurred,
whether or not Redeveloper has commenced construction of the Common Driveway at such time.
3. Addition of Section 4.10. The Contract is amended to add a new Section 4.10,
which provides as follows:
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Section 4.10. Limited Use of Authority Property. (a) The Authority grants to the
Redeveloper the temporary use of the Authority Property solely for customer parking purposes
related to Redeveloper’s marketing of the Minimum Improvements (the “Permitted Use”). Such
Permitted Use is authorized for the period from May 1 through September 1, 2010, upon
satisfaction of the following conditions:
(i) Prior to July 1, 2010, the Redeveloper shall obtain a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy from the City for at least one model housing unit within the Minimum Improvements;
(ii) The Redeveloper shall provide signage indicating that parking on the Authority
Property is restricted to customer parking and is available solely during time periods that model
units are open to the public, and that no overnight parking is permitted on the Authority Property;
and
(iii) The Redeveloper shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that at least one parking stall is
designated for handicapped persons.
(b) The Redeveloper shall at all times indemnify and hold harmless the Authority from
any and all claims for damages, including costs and attorney fees, arising from or by the Permitted
Use by the Redeveloper, Redeveloper’s guests or invitees of the Authority Property; provided,
however, that nothing in this Section shall be construed to waive any rights that the Authority has
against the Redeveloper under this Contract. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as a waiver
by the Authority of any limitations on liability to which the Authority is entitled pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or otherwise.
(c) The Authority shall at all times during the term of this Contract indemnify and hold
harmless the Redeveloper from any and all claims for damages, including costs and attorney fees,
arising from or by the willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Authority and the
governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees thereof upon the Redevelopment
Property.
4. Amendment of Schedule A. Schedule A of the Contract is amended to add legal
descriptions of the Authority Property and of the Common Driveway property, as follows:
Authority Property: [description forthcoming]
Common Driveway: [description forthcoming]
5. Addition of Schedule H. The Contract is amended to add a new Schedule H,
representing the Site Plan for the Common Driveway, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
6. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by Phil Finkelstein and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by Scott Bader, the Administrative Member of Ellipse on Excelsior LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 11
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Exhibit A
Site Plan
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 12
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day of April,
2010, by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body
corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and Ellipse on Excelsior, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company (“Ellipse").
RECITALS:
A. The Authority is the fee owner of certain property legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Authority Property”).
B. Ellipse is the fee owner of property legally described in Exhibit B attached
hereto lying adjacent to the Eastern boundary of the Authority Property (“Ellipse
Property”).
C. The parties desire to create a common driveway providing ingress and egress
to both the Authority Property and the Ellipse Property.
D. The Authority has agreed to grant a permanent ingress and egress easement
for the benefit of the Ellipse Property, and Ellipse has agreed to grant a permanent ingress
and egress easement for the benefit of the Authority Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and covenants herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Grant of Ingress and Egress Easement. Ellipse hereby grants and conveys, for
the benefit of the Authority Property, a permanent non-exclusive appurtenant easement over,
under, and across the Westerly fifteen (15) feet of the Ellipse Property, and the Authority
hereby grants and conveys, for the benefit of the Ellipse Property, a permanent non-exclusive
appurtenant easement over, under, and across the Easterly fifteen (15) feet of the Authority
Property, as described on Exhibit C attached hereto (“Easement Area”) for the purposes of
vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress between the Authority Property, the Ellipse
Property, and public right of way by the owners of the Authority Property and the Ellipse
Property, and any invitees, licensees, tenants, lessees, customers, patrons, employees, servants,
and visitors.
2. Temporary Driveway. Until such time as the Authority Property is sold to a
third party (the “Authority Sale”), Ellipse may construct a temporary surface over all or any
portion of the Easement Area for access to the Ellipse Property (the “Temporary
Driveway”). Until the Authority Sale, the parties are under no obligation to keep the entire
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 13
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
Easement Area open and Ellipse may use that portion of the Easement Area located on the
Ellipse Property and not encumbered by the Temporary Driveway for any purpose
whatsoever, including parking of vehicles.
3. No Obstruction. Following the Authority Sale and except as specifically
provided in Section 2 regarding the Temporary Driveway, the Easement Area shall be kept
open, and the parties shall use commercially reasonable efforts to prevent the parking of any
vehicle or any obstruction of any kind to exist in the Easement Area or which will prevent or
obstruct vehicular traffic on the Easement Area.
4. Construction and Maintenance. Until the Authority Sale, the owner of the
Ellipse Property shall be solely responsible for the cost of any construction, maintenance and
repair of the Easement Area. Following the Authority Sale, the third-party purchaser shall be
solely responsible for the cost of construction of a permanent common driveway within the
Easement Area (the “Permanent Driveway”). Following the Authority Sale, the owner of
the Ellipse Property will be responsible for timely performance of Maintenance (as described
below) of the Permanent Driveway, provided, however, that the owners of the Ellipse
Property and Authority Property shall be jointly responsible for the cost of such
Maintenance, which payments shall be made pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement. The
term “Maintenance” shall include but not be limited to (a) the prompt removal of all papers,
debris, snow, ice, filth and refuse, (b) thorough sweeping, (c) filling of potholes, and (d)
other routine maintenance to the extent reasonably necessary to keep the Permanent
Driveway and the Easement Area in a neat, clean, orderly and safe condition.
5. Payment of Maintenance Costs. Following the Authority Sale and
construction of the Permanent Driveway, the owner of the Authority Property covenants and
agrees to pay to the owner of the Ellipse Property an amount equal to one-half (½) of the
cost of Maintenance, which payment shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of a statement for such Maintenance costs. If the owner of the Ellipse Property is not
reimbursed within said thirty (30) days from the date of billing for its costs, the owner of the
Ellipse Property shall have the right to a lien against the title to the Authority Property.
Nothing set forth in this Section 5 shall deny the right to appropriate injunctive relief upon
breach of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement.
6. Indemnification. The Authority and its successors and assigns, shall defend,
hold harmless and indemnify Ellipse and its successors and assigns, from all claims, actions,
demands and liabilities arising from the use by the Authority and its successors, assigns,
tenants, subtenants, agents, servants, employees, guests and invitees of the easements granted
herein. Ellipse and its successors and assigns, shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the
Authority from all claims, actions, demands and liabilities arising from the use by Ellipse and
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 14
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
its successors, assigns, tenants, subtenants, agents, servants, employees, guests and invitees, of
the easements granted herein.
7. Term. This Agreement shall be perpetual.
8. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
9. Amendment. This Agreement may be extended, abrogated, modified,
rescinded, amended or terminated in whole or in part only by a written agreement signed by
the owner of the Authority Property and the owner of the Ellipse Property.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 15
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have executed this Agreement the day
and year first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of _______,
2010 by Phil Finkelstein and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on
behalf of the Authority.
_________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires ______________
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 16
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, LLC
By________________________________
Its: ________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________,
2010 by Scott Bader, the Administrative Member of Ellipse on Excelsior LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
_________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires ______________
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 17
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Authority Property
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 18
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EXHIBIT B
Legal Description of Ellipse Property
EDA Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 19
Subject: 1st Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC
EXHIBIT C
Legal Description of Easement Area
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Caring Youth Day Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to present the Caring Youth Day Proclamation. This is the 21st year that the
community has held this celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and concern
for others. Shelly Beissel from St. Louis Park Schools will be in attendance at the meeting to accept
the proclamation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Twenty-one years ago Roland and Doris Larson, members of Westwood Lutheran Church, had an
idea to recognize young people for their spirit of caring and concern for others.
The Larson’s created this event at Westwood Lutheran Church out of the Larson’s lifelong passion
for youth ministry and caring. The following year, the Larson’s brought the idea to the St. Louis
Park community. In 1990, the Youth Development Committee under the leadership of Beth
Johnson held the first community-wide Caring Youth Recognition where 16 honorees were named.
Since then, the event has evolved and is truly community owned. Today, representatives from
several different community organizations plan the Caring Youth event.
To date, 388 youth have been honored through St. Louis Park’s Caring Youth Recognition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Bringing together people to recognize our youth is consistent with the Strategic Direction of being a
Connected and Engaged Community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Caring Youth Day Proclamation Page 2
PROCLAMATION
CARING YOUTH DAY
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park will be hosting it’s 21st annual community wide
celebration to recognize young people for their caring spirit and concern for others;
and
WHEREAS, Caring Youth Day was the creation of Westwood Lutheran
Church and Roland and Doris Larson and is now planned by representatives of several
community organizations; and
WHEREAS, to date 388 youth have been honored through St. Louis Park’s
Caring Youth Recognition; and
WHEREAS, these young people are important assets to our community who
inspire all of us through their altruistic actions; and
WHEREAS, these additional young people who have involved themselves
unselfishly in a cause or situation that benefits others will be recognized on April 27,
2010;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of
the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim April 27, 2010, to be Caring Youth
Day in St. Louis Park and call upon all citizens in our Community to join in the
salute of these special young people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great
Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this
19th day of April, 2010.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Recognition of Board and Commission Members
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. The Mayor is asked to read the attached Proclamation honoring all volunteer commissioners in
observance of National Volunteer Week.
2. The Mayor is asked to recognize and present Certificates of Appreciation to the following past
outgoing board and commission members:
• Gage Dennison – Police Advisory Commission (February 2008 - November 2009)
• Tony Deos – Human Rights Commission (January 2009 - March 2010)
• David Dyer – Telecommunications Advisory Commission (December 2007 - December 2009)
• Steve Fillbrandt – Charter Commission (April 2003 - January 2010)
• Linda Jennings – Charter Commission (March 2002 - March 2010)
• Manuel Jordan – Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (February 2008 - June 2009)
• Janice Loftus – Charter Commission (March 2002 - March 2010)
• Lisa Miller – Human Rights Commission (March 2007 - May 2009)
• Richard Markgraf – Police Advisory Commission (February 2006 - December 2009)
• Justin Noznesky – Police Advisory Commission (February 2008 - January 2010)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park has had a long-standing tradition of citizen involvement in all aspects of
city government. Citizen involvement improves the quality and responsiveness of public decision
making. An opportunity to do just that is in the form of serving as a board and/or commissioner on
one of the City’s nine boards and commissions – Board of Zoning Appeals, Charter Commission,
Fire Civil Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission, Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission and the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission. In addition, the City Council also appoints citizen representatives for
positions on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and the Community Education
Advisory Commission.
It is because of the past commitment of citizen representatives on these various boards and
commissions that staff requests City Council honor these individuals for their past service to the
community and recognize the contributions they have made.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Recognizing citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a connected and engaged
community.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 2b) Page 3
Subject: Recognition of Board and Commission Members
PROCLAMATION
Honoring Board and Commission Volunteers
WHEREAS, various Boards and Commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the
City of St. Louis Park City Council and are conferred various degrees of decision making
power of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park welcomes its citizens to share their talents and
perspectives by serving on an advisory board or commission;
WHEREAS, citizen involvement enhances the quality and responsiveness of public
decision making and the progress of the community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers are an essential piece of the Park
vital to our future as a caring and productive community; and integral to our vision of
becoming a connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to selflessly give their
compassion, time, and commitment to better their community and the lives of others; and
WHEREAS, Board and Commission volunteers continue to make a difference
through their hard work, dedication and outstanding contributions to the City of St. Louis
Park; and
WHEREAS, in observance of National Volunteer Week, a special tribute is due to
honor our valuable volunteers who serve as a board or commission member.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park do hereby commemorate volunteer members of St. Louis Park Boards &
Commissions for their dedicated service and outstanding contributions to improving the quality of
lives of others, and supporting our community and its people.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 19th day of April, 2010.
______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting D
Agenda Item #: 3a
CITY COUN
ST. LOUIS PARK,
APRIL 5, 2010
ate: April 19, 2010
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
MINNESOTA
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
, Paul Omodt (arrived at
:04 p.m.), Julia Ross (arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
ouncilmembers absent: None.
ing), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Fire
hief (Mr. Stemmer), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
. Dispatch Options
alley know by June 1st whether it will accept Golden Valley’s request
provide dispatch services.
f ancillary services including clerical work on a 24 hour basis; the City also operates the jail
cility.
d
orrections Department regulations require that jail cells be physically checked every 30 minutes.
ear. She added that this is an
pgraded phone system that is better able to locate cell phone calls.
a new LOGIS CAD system and the City is
bligated to pay the full purchase price of $138,125.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity
6
C
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), Police Chief
(Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Ms. Dreier), Police Lieutenant (Mr. DiLorenzo), Chief Information
Officer (Mr. Pires), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwill
C
1
Mr. Harmening introduced the topic and stated that Golden Valley has notified the City that it
wishes to terminate its public safety dispatch services contract effective January 1, 2011 on the
premise that the County will take on their needs. He pointed out that City staff recently attended a
County Board meeting and based on the discussion at that meeting, it is not absolutely certain that
the County will take on Golden Valley in 2011. He stated that consideration is being given by the
County to conduct a comprehensive analysis of its dispatch services overall, and the County
indicated it would let Golden V
to
Ms. Gohman stated the staff report contains an analysis of four separate Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP) approaches. She then discussed Option A which represents the current PSAP model,
which includes ten dispatchers. She stated that in addition to PSAP services, dispatchers perform a
number o
fa
Mr. DiLorenzo pointed out that monitoring of the jail cells cannot be performed remotely an
C
Ms. Dreier stated that the Viper phone upgrade purchase is on hold at the present time, but it is a
scheduled upgrade and will have to be replaced within the next y
u
Ms. Gohman explained that the City is on line for
o
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
ll level so the City could meet its business needs with a
duction of three dispatchers, or 7 FTE.
ouncilmember Ross asked if the overtime estimate could be reduced.
partment does not spend its entire
vertime budget and the estimate represents a realistic number.
think seven dispatchers would be enough to cover a
4-7 operation and meet the needs of the City.
6 dispatchers
d Minnetonka currently has 8 dispatchers for 24/7 independent PSAP operations.
nitor the number of dispatchers needed in order
maintain the level of service currently provided.
il discussed the technological needs required under Option B, including the Viper
urchase.
ty and then decide the appropriate
urse of action pertaining to the purchase of the Viper system.
and revenue under this
enario would be zero because the City would not receive 9-1-1 funding.
ason to suspect that the State might cancel 9-1-1
nding in its quest to balance the State budget.
ds are derived from phone billings and staff has not heard that the
tate is looking at that money.
Ms. Gohman presented Option B, representing St. Louis Park as an independent PSAP and noted
this is a likely scenario. She stated that Option B and Option C contain sufficient budget numbers
to allow the City to continue to provide the same value-added services. She indicated that with
Option B, there would be a reduction in ca
re
C
Mr. Luse stated that in a typical calendar year, the Police De
o
Councilmember Sanger stated that she did not
2
Mr. Luse stated that he was comfortable with seven dispatchers based on the City’s size. He added
that many Dakota County cities, comparable in size to St. Louis Park, had seven or eight dispatchers
before they joined the countywide system. He also indicated Hopkins currently has
an
Ms. Gohman stated that staff would continue to mo
to
The Counc
p
Mr. Harmening pointed out that it would be prudent for the Council to wait a couple of months to
see what takes place with Golden Valley’s request to the Coun
co
Ms. Gohman then presented Option C, which would involve the City contracting with Hennepin
County for PSAP services, and Option D, which consolidates PSAP services with another
independent PSAP. She stated the largest component of Option C involves staffing; in order to
continue to provide value-added services, five Community Service Officers (CSO) would be
required, along with an office assistant and a crime analyst, for a total of seven positions. She added
Option C would reduce costs for MCD and the LOGIS CAD system,
sc
Councilmember Sanger asked if staff has any re
fu
Mr. Luse replied that 9-1-1 fun
S
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
ty because of the uncertainty surrounding the County’s practice of
ot charging for PSAP services.
me future time the City determined it did not wish to contract with the County for PSAP services.
unty did not experience the
st savings they anticipated when they joined the countywide system.
omprehensive study with respect to PSAP services, including a
view of existing dispatch facilities.
aying for the Sheriff to provide services and the
ity is also paying for its own independent PSAP.
considered, including the possibility of
aving several cities join together to create one joint PSAP.
was also informed that this arrangement has
een looked into with not much success at this time.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about the City incurring additional expense if it
decides to contract with the Coun
n
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City would incur any transition costs under Option C. She also
asked how difficult it would be to terminate a contract with the County under this scenario if at
so
Mr. Luse stated that through their research, staff learned that Dakota Co
co
Mr. Harmening stated that the County has previously discussed the concept of charging a buy-in fee
or a per call fee for new cities coming on to the County’s PSAP system. He explained that the
County Administrator has suggested to the County Board that it charge for dispatch services to new
cities coming in to the system, but the Sheriff feels the County should not charge for this service.
He noted that this decision will be a County Board decision and not a Sheriff decision. He stated
that based on the County Board meetings attended by staff, the County Commissioners are
struggling with the concept of charging some cities and not others because of equity issues, and felt
there would be a lot of questions raised if the County Board did this. He added that Golden Valley
is the only city that has asked the County to take them on, but other cities have now become more
engaged in the discussion, including Richfield and Eden Prairie. He stated that the County Board
discussed the idea of undertaking a c
re
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the Sheriff is required to provide certain services and the
question is whether the Sheriff can statutorily charge other cities based on a city’s timing of coming
on to the County system. He added the City is p
C
Councilmember Sanger stated that consideration could be given to a two-phase approach, i.e.,
assuming Golden Valley is no longer part of the current model, what needs to be done in the short
term and what are the longer term items that need to be
h
Ms. Gohman stated the best case scenario related to option D would be for the City to join another
LOGIS city like Minnetonka or Richfield. Council
b
Mr. Luse stated he felt the logical next step would be a consolidation of several cities and to
determine whose facility would provide the services. He added that cities like New Hope and
Crystal would work well for consolidation because their model does not depend on ancillary services
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
d he
as asked at a couple of County meetings, as have some other cities, whether St. Louis Park has the
sed on Mr. Harmening’s
arch 26, 2010 letter of clarification. Mr. Harmening stated he has not heard from Golden Valley,
ed if the
ouncil wished to keep the option of going with the County on the table.
, Omodt, and Mavity replied in the affirmative.
ncil’s thanks to staff for their thoughtful analysis and helpful
formation contained in the staff report.
he meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
ritten eports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
of on-site dispatchers. He indicated that in his opinion, the independent PSAPs provide the best
service and represent the most cost-effective model for getting the most out of the taxpayer dollar.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff has met with Commissioner Dorfman and asked her if the County
takes on Golden Valley, whether that opportunity would be available to St. Louis Park, and whether
there would be any cost associated with the County providing that service to the City. He adde
h
option of joining the County if the County is willing to allow Golden Valley to join. He noted that
the County informed the City in 2004 that it would not entertain any other cities until 2012.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Golden Valley appears to have been misinformed regarding its
costs. She asked if this misinformation served as a basis for Golden Valley’s request to terminate,
and whether Golden Valley might consider not terminating its contract ba
M
and agreed to keep the Council updated on Golden Valley’s request to the County. He ask
C
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Sanger
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Cou
in
T
W R
2. Operation May Day Update
_
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 5, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Deputy City Manager
(Ms. Gohman), Deputy Police Chief (Mr. DiLorenzo), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Controller (Mr.
Swanson), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher),
Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Senior Engineering
Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr.
Dunlap), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Bruce Browning, Telecommunications Advisory Commission Chair, and Stacie Kvilvang,
Ehlers & Associates.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Park TV Local Programming Month Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read the Proclamation recognizing April 2010 as ParkTV Local Programming
Month and recognizing the numerous individuals and volunteers for their commitment to
local programming.
Bruce Browning, Telecommunications Advisory Commission Chair, stated that local
programming involves a broad spectrum of people across the entire community. He
encouraged residents to visit the ParkTV website and stated there are a number of resources
available on the website. He expressed sincere thanks to the City Council and City staff, and
particularly Mr. Zwilling, Mr. Pires, and Mr. Dunlap for their dedicated efforts.
2b. Beautify the Park Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read the Beautify the Park Proclamation, proclaiming Earth Week 2010 (April
17-25) to be the kick-off for several initiatives, including encouraging residents to pick up
litter and other remnants of winter and give their neighborhood a fresh start this spring. He
added that reinvestment in the City’s tree canopy represents a new initiative this year and the
City has teamed up with Tree Trust to make it affordable for residents to reforest their
properties.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of March 15, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the first paragraph on page 14 be revised to state
“Councilmember Finkelstein stated that simply because the City is going forward with the
next phase of this project does not mean that the City has committed to building this
interchange, primarily because the City cannot do this project without additional Federal,
State and County funding.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Study Session Minutes of March 22, 2010
Councilmember Sanger requested that the seventh paragraph on page 2 be revised to state
“Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that residents will not water the replacement
trees and felt the City should have a better system in place for requiring residents to water
their boulevard trees or for the City to water newly planted trees.”
Councilmember Sanger also requested that the first paragraph on page 4 be revised to state
“Councilmember Sanger agreed that the overall community needs should be addressed as
well as a community center, which entails more than looking at just turf. She added that she
did not view this as merely one way of saving money but rather as an issue of Council
priorities. She also stated that through the St. Louis Park Vision process, there was a stated
demand for more gathering places specifically within St. Louis Park that had indoor
amenities and indoor facilities and that there was no stated demand at that time for artificial
turf.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2380-10 vacating drainage and utility
easement 600 Highway 169, and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-033 accepting this report, approving plans and
specifications for soil removals and authorizing advertisement for bids.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-034 Accepting Donation from City of Rosemount in the
form of two network servers (HP ProLiant).
4d. Approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor
license for Crave Hospitality WE LLC doing business as Crave located at 1603 West
End Boulevard.
4e. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
4f. Approval for Filing Charter Commission Minutes September 9, 2009.
4g. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2010.
4h. Approval for Filing Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2010.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve the
Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to appoint
citizen representative William Theobald as a Commissioner to the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission for the term ending December 31, 2011.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Liquor License – Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that the establishment’s planned opening has
been delayed to late May or early June and will be located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard in
the Shops at West End. She indicated the restaurant will feature family dining, a guitar
shaped bar and will host live entertainment. She added the site will also include a retail store
selling Toby Keith merchandise.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Kate Becker, counsel for the applicant, appeared
before the City Council. She stated that Mr. Keith will probably perform at the restaurant
shortly after it opens. No other speakers were present.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the application from CRGE Minneapolis, LLC dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill for
an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license to be located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard
with the license term through March 1, 2011.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Call for Sale of General Obligation Bonds
Resolution No. 10-035
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report.
Ms. Kvilvang stated that the City Council is being asked to approve the sale of two issues,
the first is $3,125,000 in taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds,
Series 2010A, and the second is $5,985,000 in General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B.
She explained that the majority of the owners of the Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association petitioned the City to create a housing improvement area and issue bonds to
fund approximately $3,650,000 in improvements to the exteriors of the units; it is the City’s
intent to levy a housing improvement area fee on each unit to support 105% of the debt
service beginning with taxes payable 2011. She indicated these fees are similar to special
assessments for public improvements and the fees can be prepaid in whole or in part by
March 31, 2010. She pointed out that as of April 1, 2010; fifty condominium owners
(21%) prepaid their assessments, totaling $830,195.
Ms. Kvilvang then explained that the second bond issue is going to be used to reimburse the
water and storm sewer utilities for improvements pursuant to the rate study presented earlier
to the Council. She stated that the refunding portion of the 2010B Bonds is to provide
funds sufficient for a current refunding of the G.O. Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds Series
2001B and the G.O. Bonds Series 2003A which were issued for various park and trail
improvements as well as improvements to recreational facilities. She indicated that the
refunding of the 2001B Sewer Revenue Bonds will save the City approximately $142,000
over the remaining term of the Bonds and represents a savings of approximately 8.180% of
the refunded principal. She further indicated that the 2003A G.O. Bonds will save the City
approximately $74,000 over the remaining term of the Bonds and represents a savings of
approximately $18,500 over the next four years. She pointed out that the 2010A bond issue
is taxable because they represent private improvements.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the 2010B bonds are being refinanced at lower
interest rates because the City is now rated AAA. He added that the Housing Improvement
Area is a tool used by cities to redevelop their aging condominium areas and St. Louis Park
has utilized this tool in other areas of the City. He complimented the Sunset Ridge
Condominium Association for their efforts on this project and stated that this is a
worthwhile project, particularly when you consider that 50 condominium owners prepaid
their assessment. He added this type of project does not carry any more risk as a
development tool than if the City were to use development funds and is something that the
City uses to keep the City alive and growing.
Councilmember Sanger stated that part of the reason for the City’s issuance of these bonds is
to help support the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association, and by doing so, it helps
preserve the availability of owner occupied affordable housing. She added that by doing it
this way, it represents no cost to the taxpayers and the homeowners will repay them through
their taxes every year.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-035 Providing for Sale of:
• $3,125,000 Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds,
Series 2010A; and
• $5,985,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Project Report: 2010 MSA Street Rehab (Wooddale Avenue) – Project No.
2009-1101
Resolution No. 10-036
Mr. Olson presented the staff report and stated this year’s MSA Street rehab will be
performed on Wooddale Avenue from West 44th Street to West 42-1/2 Street. He explained
that the project will include a two inch mill and overlay, curb and gutter repair at certain
locations which will include some driveway aprons, minor storm sewer repairs, sidewalk
repairs, pedestrian curb ramp updates, and new striping. He indicated that because
Wooddale is a State Aid road, it must comply with State Aid standards, however, Wooddale
is deficient on roadway width and staff requested and received a variance from Mn/DOT to
allow the road to be rebuilt in its current configuration. He stated that the project will have
a five week construction period beginning in late June and the road will be open during
construction, with access provided to driveways most times. He stated that staff met with
residents to discuss the project and letters will be mailed to adjacent property owners prior to
the start of construction. He stated the engineer’s estimate for the project is $164,800 and
the project will be funded entirely with State Aid funds through the gas tax.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-036 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2009-1101 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for Improvement Project No. 2009-1101.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Approve 2010-2011 Police Officer (Local #206) Labor Agreement
Resolution No. 10-037
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. She explained that the Local #206 labor agreement
represents the last open contract for 2010. She stated the Police Officers group has agreed to
a two year contract with a wage increase of 1% effective January 1, 2010 and a wage increase
of 2.25% effective December 31, 2010. She stated the Police Officers group requested to
swap Columbus Day for Christmas Eve and this swap is cost neutral to the City; the City has
agreed that there will be no layoffs or furloughs in this group in 2010 and 2011; the City has
agreed to the addition of an annual transfer of Flex Leave to Health Care Savings Plan; the
City also agreed that effective 1/1/11 – 12/31/11, the City will contribute $10 per pay
period to the account of each eligible employee’s deferred compensation account if the
employee contributes a minimum of $50 per pay period.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
Mayor Jacobs stated this is a good example of the great working relationship enjoyed by the
City and its labor unions. He stated it is because of that working relationship that the City is
able to effectively negotiate its labor contracts and it is a testament to both sides of the table.
He expressed the City Council’s appreciation to Ms. Gohman and the union for their efforts
in reaching agreement on their contracts. He added this is a reflection of the long time that
it takes to build the kind of relationship that allows this kind of negotiation to go forward.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-037 approving Labor Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS), Local #206 (Police Officers) January 1, 2010 –
December 31, 2011.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 8 – Building and
Contractor Licensing and Chapter 12 Environmental and Public Health Codes
Ordinance No. 2381-10
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report. He indicated that at the first reading of the
proposed ordinance changes on March 15th and pursuant to Council discussion, staff worked
with the City Attorney and amended the definition of a solicitor to include a statement that
reads “It also means any person, except for a city resident canvassing his or her
neighborhood, who canvasses, solicits or calls from house to house for contributions or
support for any charitable, religious, civic, educational, philanthropic, social service, welfare,
or organization.” He stated this definition will allow neighbors to fundraise in a
neighborhood for either a local cause or national group, without obtaining a license. He
added the intent is to not license Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, or local religious organizations
selling tickets or requesting money, and staff feels the intent has been clearly defined and
parameters have been set. He stated that an additional consideration before the Council is
found under Section 8-573 related to fees, and explained that the intent of this ordinance
was to collect a license fee for those individuals who have to be licensed. He indicated that
there are Federal commerce requirements that supersede the City and which state that you
cannot charge those engaged in interstate commerce. He stated that staff recommends Sec.
8-573 be amended to state “Except for solicitors engaged in Interstate Commerce, which are
specifically exempted from paying any fee under this chapter…” in order to avoid any
confusion. He explained that someone engaged in interstate commerce is someone who is
out selling a product but is not carrying the product with them, such as magazine
subscriptions, but is instead taking orders for sales; these individuals will still need to be
licensed, but the ordinance clarifies that they are exempt from the license fee.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2381-10 relating to Business Licenses, Amending
Regulations Relating to Inspection Fees, Massage Therapy, Peddlers, Solicitors and
Transient Merchants, and Food and Beverage Establishments.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
8e. Second Reading of Compost Ordinance Revision
Ordinance No. 2382-10
Mr. Merkley presented the staff report. He stated that following the first reading on March
15th and in response to Councilmember Sanger’s question about whether composting should
be allowed on multi-family properties, staff was unable to find any other communities that
are currently composting in high density residential properties. He added that Minneapolis
and Edina advised against allowing composting on high density properties because residents
in these properties typically do not perform yard maintenance and therefore do not have yard
waste material to compost, and these types of residents are less likely to properly maintain
the compost. He stated staff recommends that the compost ordinance be approved as
presented at the first reading and if it is later determined that composting on high density
residential properties is desired, staff will bring this item back to Council for further
discussion. He also pointed out a typographical error in Section 22.124(c) which states the
compost structure shall not exceed 150 cubic feet; this should state 15 cubic feet.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her appreciation to staff for conducting the research
regarding the applicability of the ordinance to multi-family units and stated she is
comfortable with starting at this level.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2382-10 approving Composting Revisions Amending
Chapter 22, Article III of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents that April 12th is the start date for compost pick up of yard
waste. He stated that residents can no longer use plastic bags per State law.
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Lenox spaghetti dinner on April 23rd at 4:30 p.m.
He stated this event is always well attended and tickets can be preordered and residents can
also reserve their dinner time.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item # 4a:
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Agreement
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Continuation of Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Delegation Agreement for
Environmental Health Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to enter into a delegation agreement with MDH for continuing to provide Environmental
Health Services.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to provide environmental health related services in St. Louis
Park?
BACKGROUND:
St. Louis Park began providing Environmental Health Service programs beginning in 1958 with the
creation of a Health Department. The City developed its own regulations to ensure community
safety and administered the program independently for many years before the MDH implemented
state-wide codes and administration of environmental health services 1976. St. Louis Park has
continued to provide licensing and inspection of food, pool and lodging establishments as a
delegated agency. The Environmental Health Service program is now part of a full spectrum of
integrated services provided by the Inspections Department. Other cities in Hennepin County also
providing local Environmental Health Services include: Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Edina,
Minneapolis, Minnetonka, and Richfield.
DISCUSSION:
All current agreements between the MDH and cities or counties providing delegated services will
expire on June 30. In order for the City to continue providing these services it will be necessary for
the City Council to approve entering into a new agreement. During 2009, as part of the City’s 2010
budget development process and the Inspection Department minor re-organization, a
comprehensive evaluation was completed regarding Environmental Health Services program. As a
component of the City’s fee-for-service programs, licensing and permit revenue for Environmental
Health Services compensate for the related expenditures of staffing and operating costs. As part of
the reorganization, Environmental Health Services programs have been streamlined and are now
primarily performed by two full-time Registered Sanitarians, a summer intern program, and a joint
services agreement with the City of Minnetonka to assist with covering periods of increased plan
review/inspection workload or staff shortages due to personal leave.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal
The benefits of providing food, pool, and lodging services on a local level are many:
• Plan review for construction of restaurants and other buildings with food/pool/lodging functions
are coordinated with the Construction Codes Inspectors and other reviewing departments.
• Providing a true “one stop” location where business owners and contactors can meet to discuss
proposed developments with a reduced review time.
• Integrating the food license, liquor license (when applicable) and certificate of occupancy are
critical for ensuring a smooth business opening to the public.
• City staff consults and educates local groups representing community events, places of religious
worships, sports organization, and preparing food at public events.
• Resident concerns or reports of a food borne illness are responded to immediately and on a local
level.
• The Property Maintenance requirements are integrated into the inspections of licensed
establishments.
• Maintaining registered sanitarians on staff allows us to utilize the expertise and professional
licensure to more effectively resolve trash house issues, request county assistance, and be seen as
qualified public health professionals recognized by the courts.
Entering into the new delegation agreement will have minimal effect on our program and be
transparent to the public. Staff is recommending administering the delegated services specified in
Section 2.1 of the attached agreement. Items A, B, E, F (1), and F (4) allow for continuation of the
food, pool, and lodging programs in addition to authorizing administrative variances to the State
codes when necessary.
MDH is proposing a new delegation agreement to establish a common agreement for all cities and
counties performing environmental health services throughout the state. Some of the specific
requirements of the delegation agreement include the following:
• City Code adoption of relevant State Statues and Rules by reference. (We may be no more or
less restrictive than State standards).
• Detailed Policy and Procedure manuals for administrating each of the delegated programs (food,
pool, and lodging).
• Minimum job qualifications and registration for staff performing Environmental Health
services.
• City Code must establish enforcement authority.
• Annual staffing plan and any mutual service agreements submitted to MDH.
• Annual licensing and uniform inspection program for achieving compliance of violations.
• MDH will periodically evaluate our program for performance and compliance with this
agreement (this is similar to the process currently in place by the Department of Labor and
Industry for our Construction Codes permits and inspection process).
Staff has been reviewing our program documents and procedures to ensure we meet all of the
delegation conditions. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and prepared the recent
business license ordinance amendments which included adopting the necessary State Rules.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal
If the delegation agreement is not accepted by the City, the ability to license, permit and inspect
restaurants, hotels, swimming pools, other related facilities, and the associated revenue would revert
back to the MDH. They could then elect to provide the services directly from the St. Paul office or
delegate the services to Hennepin County.
Maintaining our full-service Inspection programs operating with a fee-for-service approach provides
benefit to community businesses and residents without adding to property tax costs. The agreement
will remain in effect until MDH has reasons to terminate the agreement or if the City voluntarily
terminates the agreement by providing a one year written notice.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Fee analysis indicates the program is financially self-sufficient. Continued analysis to determine
appropriate fee structure will be reviewed on an annual basis as license fees are determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments: Minnesota Department of Health Delegation Agreement
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 4
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 5
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 6
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 7
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 8
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 9
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 10
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 11
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 12
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 13
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 14
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 15
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 16
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 17
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 18
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 19
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 20
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: MN Dept of Health Delegation Agreement Renewal Page 21
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation: 2010 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 6, Project No. 2009-1000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Valley Paving Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of
contract with the firm in the amount of $1,005,620.31 for the 2010 Local Street Rehabilitation
Project – Area 6, Project No. 2009-1000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue to implement our pavement management program?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on April 8, 2010 for the 2010 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 6. This
is the sixth year of the City’s Pavement Management Program. Work for this year’s program will
occur on selected streets in the Brookside and Elmwood Neighborhoods. The work includes
replacing the old pavement with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project
includes drainage system repairs and fire hydrant replacement.
A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in
the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 25, 2010 and in the Construction Bulletin on March 22,
and 29, 2010. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
* Bid corrected upon extension
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Valley Paving, Inc. $1,005,620.31
Hardrives, Inc. $1,056,602.05
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $1,058,496.00
ASTECH Corporation* $1,094,531.71
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $1,145,933.40
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $1,159,032.20
Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc.* $1,175,409.82
Engineer’s Estimate $1,194,107.00
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Valley Paving, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Valley Paving has worked for the
City before and has successfully completed previous contracts.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: 2010 Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 6, Project No. 2009-1000
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin in mid-May and should be completed by mid-August.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). This project will be funded by two sources, the Pavement Management Fund for the
associated street work and the Water Utility Fund for the hydrant replacement work.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Urban Reforestation Policy Amendment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve an amendment to the City’s Urban Reforestation Policy to incorporate the
treatment of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) as an allowable use of the Land Sale Proceeds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the Urban Reforestation Policy to allow for the injection of
Elm trees for Dutch Elm Disease as an eligible use of the Land Sale Proceeds?
BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 2009, the City Council adopted an Urban Reforestation Program and Policy. The
purpose of adopting the policy was to identify and direct how the excess land sale proceeds should be
used. The intent of the Urban Reforestation Program and Policy was to supplement funds for tree
planting on public property. The desire was to use the money obtained from the land sale proceeds
for something that had a lasting impact on the community.
In 2010 $25,000 will be used from the land sale fund for tree planting and supplement the $60,000
already in the City’s 2010 budget. This money will allow for the planting of 100 additional trees.
For this plan, “tree planting” would equal purchasing tree stock, wood mulch, and contracting for
tree planting services. This would qualify only if the actions are involved with planting and
establishing new trees.
At the March 22, 2010 City Council Study Session, Council expressed an interest in changing the
current policy to allow the treatment of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) to be an allowable expense under
the Urban Reforestation Policy. The money used to pay for the injections would come from the
Land Sale Proceeds. The DED injection program was cut from the 2010 operating budget.
A report with these suggested changes was sent to the City Council its review at their April 12 study
session. The next step in the process is to formally change the policy.
PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE
Based on feedback from the City Council, the Urban Reforestation Policy is proposed to be
amended to reflect that the treatment of Elm trees for DED will be an eligible activity under the
policy. The policy further reflects that the Council will annually establish a budget for this activity.
The proposed policy changes are attached and are noted in red and underlined. For 2010 staff is
proposing that the City pay for 15% of the cost for the treatment of DED on public and private
property with a total budget not to exceed $20,000. These are the same budget parameters and
approach used in 2009.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Urban Reforestation Policy Amendment
PUBLIC EDUCATION:
With this change in policy, residents will be notified that Council has authorized the expenditure of
up to $20,000 in 2010 to pay 15% of the cost of injecting trees as a prevention of DED. The cost of
this will be funded through the land sale proceeds rather than through the general fund. In the past,
the city has solicited bids for one contractor to administer the DED injections. Because the bidding
process can take six weeks, staff recommends that for 2010 the City allow residents to use any tree
contractor who is licensed by the city to provide injections. When a resident chooses a licensed tree
contractor to provide the injection, the resident will be asked to pay the bill and send the city the
invoice. The city will then reimburse the resident 15% of the cost of the injection. The cost to inject
may vary slightly by contractor and is not expected to be significant. The process will be explained in
a letter that will be sent to residents who have participated in this program in the past. This
information will also be posted on the City’s web site and thru other means.
Staff will continue to emphasize the importance of trees, tree planting and the benefits of trees.
Information will be provided to residents when boulevard trees are planted, stressing the importance
of the property owner taking care of the tree by watering them.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The accumulated proceeds from the lands sales thus far are approximately $500,000. The Council
has authorized spending $25,000 from the Land Sale Proceeds to plant additional trees in 2010
under the Urban Reforestation Policy. This policy change will allow an additional amount, not to
exceed $20,000, for the prevention of Dutch Elm Diseases through injections in 2010.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Urban Reforestation Policy is in alignment with the City Council’s adopted Strategic
Direction relating to environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Urban Reforestation Program Policy with proposed changes
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Urban Reforestation Policy Amendment
St. Louis Park
Urban Reforestation Program Policy
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Urban Reforestation Policy is to provide a healthy and diverse tree population
and support the City’s vision regarding environmental stewardship.
DEFINITION:
Urban Reforestation is the continuation of planting and maintaining trees in our city.
USE OF FUNDS:
The goal of the City’s Urban Reforestation Program is to provide a healthy and diverse tree
population and support the City’s Vision regarding environmental stewardship. The funds will be
used as follows:
a) To plant trees along boulevards, at the Nature Center and in parks to replace trees which
have been removed and not replaced due to past budget constraints.
b) To provide a one-for-one tree replacement which means that a tree is planted to replace
every public tree that is lost (if feasible and possible).
c) To fill the empty places along boulevards where trees had not been planted in the past.
d) To maximize diversity of our urban forest by planting no more than 15% of one tree species.
The greater the diversity of tree species, sizes and conditions, the healthier the community
forest. This will also prevent future large-scale losses in trees due to infestation of pests.
Species are typically rotated as much as possible per block trying to mix species so the same
species are not adjacent to one another.
e) To plant native trees where possible. This minimizes the detrimental effects of exotic species.
f) To optimize natural aesthetic and wild life habitat.
g) Primarily used for boulevard trees although trees in parks and public areas would qualify.
h) Replace trees lost due to imminent diseases such as Emerald Ash Borer.
i) To pay for the injection of Elm trees for the prevention of Dutch Elm Disease on public and
private property.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The money currently obtained from land sale proceeds and the money that is yet to come in as
future sites are sold, will be put in a reforestation fund. This fund will be located within the Park
Improvement Fund and will accrue interest on the amount not yet spent.
a) As trees are removed from boulevards, parks or other City owned properties, the City
Manager, or designee, may approve expending funds from this account for the purchase and
planting of new trees within the parameters of the budget set by the City Council.
b) If new programs aimed at providing funds for trees arise, the money from those programs
will be put into this fund with the same guidelines attached.
c) The use of these funds will supplement and not replace funds previously budgeted for tree
planting on public property
A reforestation and DED injection plan and budget will be established each year and approved by
the City Council through the annual budget approval process.
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
City Council Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Relocation of Polling Location for Precinct 17 in Ward 4.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution approving relocation of polling place for Precinct 17 located in Ward 4
from Eliot Community Center to Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to relocate the polling place for Precinct 17 to Peace Presbyterian Church,
7624 Cedar Lake Road?
BACKGROUND:
Council was presented with a written report at the April 12 Study Session regarding the relocation of
Precinct 17 polling location. The St. Louis Park School Board at their regular meeting on Monday,
February 22, 2010, voted unanimously to close Eliot Community Center at the end of the 2009-10
school year. Eliot Community Center located at 6800 Cedar Lake has been a polling place for many
years for Precinct 17.
MN Statute Section 204B.16 states voting locations must be located within the boundaries of a
precinct or within one mile of a boundary, accessible to the handicapped, and of sufficient size to
accommodate all election activities.
Criteria for evaluating polling locations established by Resolution No. 02-041 adopted April 15,
2002 states designation is based on the ability of the poll to accommodate voters in terms of
handicapped access, parking, and space within the building. Larger numbers of voters will be
assigned to those buildings able to accommodate larger numbers of voters.
Based on this criteria and statutory requirements, the following alternate polling location has been
evaluated and recommended:
Precinct 17 – Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Peace Presbyterian Church is located just a few blocks west of the Eliot Community Center and just
a few blocks west of the Precinct 17 boundary line. The entrance is located on the north side of the
building along with a large parking lot. Peace Presbyterian Church is currently used for Precinct 15
and will be large enough to accommodate two precincts. The Church has two separate rooms
adjacent to each other that can be used for the two separate precincts. Peace Presbyterian Church
meets ADA accessibility requirement. Rev. Dan Martin has graciously offered the use of Peace
Presbyterian Church to accommodate the additional voters of Precinct 17.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Relocation of Polling Location for Precinct 17 in Ward 4
Utilizing Peace Presbyterian Church for two polling locations may be temporary until the 2011
Redistricting occurs from the 2010 Census results which may affect precinct boundaries. Other
polling locations that accommodate two precincts in the same building are Peter Hobart Primary
Center (Precincts 2 and 3) and City Hall (Precincts 5 and 6). Experienced election judges have done
an excellent job at these precincts making certain that voters are voting in the correct precinct and
assisting with keeping St. Louis Park elections running smoothly.
VOTER NOTIFICATION:
Staff will use a variety of methods to ensure all registered voters in Precinct 17 are informed of the
change in polling location. Information regarding the new polling location for Precinct 17 will be
published in the Park Perspective, city website, and Sun Sailor newspaper. In addition, all registered
voters in Precinct 17 from Ward Four will be notified of the change by a post card mailed from
Hennepin County at least 25 days before the next election.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Relocation of Polling Location for Precinct 17 in Ward 4
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION APPROVING RELOCATION OF POLLING PLACE
FOR PRECINCT 17 LOCATED IN WARD 4 FROM ELIOT COMMUNITY CENTER
TO PEACE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 7624 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2002, the St. Louis Park City Council adopted Resolution No.
02-041, establishing precinct boundaries and polling places as a result of the 2000 U.S. Census data;
and
WHEREAS, the City was informed by St. Louis Park School Board of the closure of Eliot
Community Center located at 6800 Cedar Lake Road polling place for Precinct 17 at the end of the
2009-10 school year; and
WHEREAS, MN Statute Section 204B.16 states voting locations must be located within
the boundaries of a precinct or within one mile of a boundary, accessible to the handicapped, and of
sufficient size to accommodate all election activities; and
WHEREAS, alternate polling locations have been evaluated and recommended based on the
criteria established by Resolution No. 02-041 and statutory requirements.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Louis Park City Council hereby
designates the following relocated polling place for Ward 4, Precinct 17 for the 2010 Elections and
all future elections:
PRECINCT 17 – Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2010 Neighborhood Grants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the 2010 Neighborhood Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the allocation of neighborhood grants for 2010?
BACKGROUND:
Each year grant funding is made available to neighborhood associations to promote strong
neighborhoods and enhance community connections by bringing neighbors together. The City
Council appropriated $31,000 in grant funds for the 2010 neighborhood grant program and an
additional $2,000 for environmental requests. Organized St. Louis Park neighborhood associations
may apply for up to $2,000 annually to support activities, operations and other neighborhood
improvements and community building activities and up to $100 for the environmental request.
Neighborhood Associations are responsible for providing outside insurance when planning
neighborhood events in parks that bring outside equipment into the park such as, but not limited to,
moonwalks, petting zoos, etc. To assist neighborhood associations with purchasing additional
insurance, neighborhoods can apply for a maximum of $500 in addition to the standard grant for
insurance reimbursement in 2010.
Grant applications from 23 neighborhoods were received in March. The total grant request for
2010 was $33,325. Fifteen of these neighborhoods also applied for additional insurance
reimbursements and sixteen neighborhoods applied for the environmental funding. On April 8th, a
Grant Review Committee met to review the grant applications and make funding recommendations
to the City Council.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $31,000 to fund the following 23
neighborhood grants:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grants
$1700 Aquila $1850 Birchwood
$1700 Blackstone $935 Bronx Park
$710 Brooklawns $1300 Brookside
$1850 Browndale $935 Cobblecrest
$950 Creekside $1290 Eliot View
$1500 Elmwood $800 Lake Forest
$1200 Lenox $1525 Kilmer Pond
$1200 Minikahda Oaks $1375 Minikahda Vista
$750 Minnehaha $1340 Oak Hill
$1700 Sorensen $1850 South Oak Hill
$1600 Triangle $1625 Westwood Hills
$1315 Willow Park
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $1600 to fund the environmental requests.
The following neighborhoods are receiving $100 each: Aquila, Birchwood, Blackstone, Browndale,
Creekside, Eliot View, Elmwood, Kilmer Pond, Lake Forest, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista,
Minnehaha, Sorensen, South Oak Hill, Triangle, and Willow Park.
The Grant Review Committee recommends approval of $4,790 to fund insurance purchased by
neighborhood associations for activities that take place in city parks that require additional
insurance. The following neighborhoods applied for insurance reimbursement: Aquila, Birchwood,
Blackstone, Bronx Park, Brookside, Browndale, Cobblecrest, Elmwood, Kilmer Pond, Minikahda
Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Oak Hill, Triangle, Westwood Hills and Willow Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The neighborhood grants support the strategic direction - St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.
The environmental component of the grant also supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: 2010 Grant Committee Worksheet
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Grant Committee Worksheet
2010 Neighborhood Grant Request
Grant Review Committee Meeting April 8th, 1:30 pm, Meadowbrook Rm. City Hall
The Grant Review Committee reduced the requests by $2,325. The maximum grant
amount awarded for 2010 is $1850.
Requests total $33,325. 2010 Grant Budget is $31,000.
Insurance and Environmental requests came in under budget.
Requested
Amount Recommended Amount
$1,850 Aquila $1,700
$200 Aquila School Recognition Event
Reduce Aqulia School
Recognition Event. School is
planning this event and
committee encourages
neighborhood to volunteer or
participate, but not contribute
financially.
$500 Neighborhood Picnic
$425
Administration ($350 postage and $75 garden tour
signage)
$500 Trail Beautification
$75 Garage Sale
$150 Getting to know your neighbors event
$50 Insurance Request $50
$100 Environmental Request - Trail Beautification $100
$2,000 Birchwood $1,850
$450 Summer Party $1850 is maximum
amount awarded for
2010.
$600 Newsletter
$500 Winter Party
$450 Movie Night
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Environmentally friendly products for events $100
$1,945 Blackstone $1,700
$270 Porta-Potty at Blackstone Park
Grant committee
recommends combining
one of the many summer
events and reducing the
operating support
budget.
$160 Park Lawn/Trees
$190 2010 Kick Off
$170 Summer Gathering
$75 Weekend Ice Cream float Social
$445 National Night Out
$215 Pizza Night
$260 Winter Gathering
$160 Operating Support
$300 Insurance Request $300
$100 Flowers for Blackstone Park $100
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 3
Requested
Amount
$935 Bronx Park $935
$525 Annual Neighborhood Picnic
$100 Neighborhood Garage Sale
$185 General Meeting Expenses
$125 Children's Activities
$100 Insurance Request $100
$710 Brooklawns $710
$300 Halloween Party
$50 Easter Egg Hunt
$260 National Night Out
$100 Kid's Fourth of July Neighborhood Parade
$1,410 Brookside $1,300
$500 National Night Out
Grant committee recommends
overall reduction and
neighborhood can determine
where to adjust, possibly
annual meeting expenses
$200 Parade & Picnic at Jackley Park
$250 Annual Meeting
$100 Garage Sale
$160 Porta-Potty at Jackely Park (share w/ Creekside)
$200 Halloween Party
$40 Insurance Request $40
$2,000 Browndale $1,850
$500 Newsletter
$1850 is maximum
amount awarded for
2010.
$600 Fall Event
$500 Family Camp Out
$100 Winterfest
$175 Spring Egg Hunt
$125 Earth Day Park Cleanup
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Earth Day Park Cleanup $100
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 4
Requested
Amount
$1,005 Cobblecrest $935
$675 Fall Hayride Committee recommends
neighborhood use bulk mail
permit for one of the mailings.
$165 National Night Out
$165 Newsletter Mailing
$300 Insurance Request $300
$1,020 Creekside $950
$20 Spring Plant Sale/Exchange
Committee recommends
overall reduction and
neighborhood can
determine where to
adjust.
$100 Butterfly Garden
$50 Neighborhood Flower Urn
$20 Garden Tour
$40 National Night Out
$40 Adult Only Gathering
$150 Porta Potty for Jackley Park
$100 Buckthorn bust
$500 Neighborhood Block Party
$100 Dispenser for Dog pick up bags $100
$1,700 Eliot View $1,290
$450 Annual Picnic Reduce youth activity expense and
garden tour expenses. No funds can
be used for private improvements
(plants in private gardens). Consider
using city staff member or master
gardener for speaker to reduce cost.
$200 National Night Out
$450 Youth Activity
$600 Garden tour & Garden Party
$100 Garden tour & Garden Party $100
$1,700 Elmwood $1,500
$500 May Garage Sale/Plant Exchange Reduce garage sale and plant
exchange event. City will print
flyers which will reduce some
costs.
$600 Summer Picnic
$600 Halloween Party
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Justad Park Planting $100
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 5
$100 Spring Clean-up $100
$100 Friends of Bass Lake $100
Requested
Amount
$1,725 Kilmer Pond $1,525
$100 Kilmer Pond Garage Sale Reduce Back to School Event
costs by using city to print
flyers. Also make website a
neighborhood website, not
just for this event.
$575 Halloween Hayride
$500 Back to School Event and Art Crawl (& website)
$50 Kilmer Pond Clean Up
$500
$500
Spring Fling
Insurance Request $500
$100 Kilmer Pond Clean Up $100
$800 Lake Forest $800
$100 Garden Maintenance & Improvements
$500 Neighborhood and block parties
$50 Welcome baskets
$75 Neighborhood Newsletters
$75 General Operating Expenses
$100 Garden Maintenance & Improvements $100
$1,200
$600
Lenox $1,200
Newsletter
$100 Blog/website
$200 Fall Picnic
$200 Winter Social
$100 Garage Sale
$750 Minnehaha $750
$150 National Night Out
$600 Tree Planting
$1,400 Minnikahda Oaks $1,200
Use city to print directory
and other flyers or
notices.
$120 Neighborhood Directory
$500 Winter & Spring Social
$150 National Night Out
$550 Annual Picnic
$80 Excelsior/France Development - Info Sharing
$500 Insurance Request $500
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 6
$100 National Night Out $100
$100 Insurance Request $100
$100 Light up the neighborhood $100
$100 Tree Planting Ceremony $100
$100 Annual Event - Environmental $100
Requested
Amount
$1,375 Minnikahda Vista $1,375
$300 Newsletter/Steering Committee
$600 National Night Out
$150 Plant Swap
$250 Volunteer Recognition
$75 Garage Sale
$200 Insurance Request $200
$1,340 Oak Hill Park $1,340
$600 Summer Fun Event (Special Amount Request)
$350 Winter Mailer
$350 Summer Mailer
$40 Winter Skate Night
$1,860 Sorensen $1,700
Reduce newsletter
postage costs by using
volunteers rather than
Do-Good for folding and
$670 Newsletter - postage
$475 12th Annual Fall Social
$190 Annual Meeting
$490 Webster Park Porta Potty and Garden
$35 Garage Sale addressing.
$1,910 South Oak Hill $1,850
$1850 is maximum
amount awarded for
2010.
$115 Summer Kick-Off Ice Cream Social
$150 Garage Sale
$600 Back to School Potluck & BBQ
$195 Neighborhood Newsletters
$50 Cocoa and Cookies Winter Gathering
$300 Neighborhood Meetings
$400 Reusable Signs
$100 Triangle Park Tree Planting
$1,600 Triangle $1,600
$600 Neighborhood Newsletters
$600 Annual Event
$400 Pumpkin Carving Social
$500 Insurance Request $500
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 7
$500 Insurance Request $500
$100 Spring Clean Up Event $100
$1,600 Total Environmental Request $1,600
Requested
Amount
$1,625 Westwood Hills $1,625
$450 Spring Event
$600 Winter Hayride
$475 Oktober Fest
$50 Adult Only Night
$50 Remodelers Showcase
$1,315 Willow Park $1,315
$600 Summer Celebration in the Park
$175 Fall Ice Cream Social
$540 Semi-Annual Newsletters
$200 Insurance Request $200
Recommended
$33,175 Total Requested by all Neighborhoods $31,000
$4,790 Total Insurance Request $4,790
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Report Page 8
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Abatement of Hazardous Building – 3317 Texas Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution ordering the abatement of the hazardous building located at 3317 Texas
Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to declare the fire damaged property at 3317 Texas Ave. South as a
hazardous building and authorize beginning the abatement process to protect the public health and
safety?
BACKGROUND:
The single family structure was being used as a rental property when a fire occurred on March 4,
2010. The second floor incurred fire damage with smoke and water damage occurring on the first
level. All occupants made it out safely. Unable to contact the owner, Fire Department staff
arranged to have the building secured by an independent contractor.
Chief Building Official, John Tilton immediately posted the building as unsafe for occupancy and
prepared notice for the owner and mortgage holders. The interested parties have not taken any steps
to correct the conditions at 3317 Texas. Current property ownership is unclear.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is the most recent notice issued on April 6th, summarizing the history and requiring
corrective action. Based on the Building Officials determination, the existing single family
residential house is in a hazardous condition and uninhabitable due to fire damage. The condition
of the building must be corrected so that it meets applicable building codes and City ordinances.
The City’s goal is to have repair work completed by the owner, returning the property to a livable
condition. If this does not occur, the only cost effective solution is for demolition of the structure
and the assessment of all costs incurred by the City against the property. Attached is a Resolution
directing the City Attorney to notify and serve all parties with an interest in the property with the
Demolition Order.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If the corrective action is not taken as required, the City Attorney will ask the Court to approve the
demolition of the structure. Upon approval by the Court, the City will hire a contractor to abate the
conditions to bring the property into compliance. Expected costs are estimated to be $10,000-
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Building – 3317 Texas Avenue South
$15,000 if demolition by the City is required. This amount, in addition to $895.88 already
expended for boarding the building after the fire, would be recovered through a special assessment
against the property. The City will also seek, if possible, recovery of legal fees related to the action.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Building
Inspection Final Notice dated April 6, 2010
Demolition Order for Removal of a Hazardous Building
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Building – 3317 Texas Avenue South
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of St. Louis Park has attempted without success
to have the owner of certain property remedy the hazardous condition of the unoccupied residence due
to fire situated on property at 3317 Texas Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the residence on the property constitutes a
hazardous building and is a health hazard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes § 463.25, Subd.3;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota:
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.16 et seq., the City hereby adopts and approves the
Demolition Order for Removal of Hazardous Building attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
2. The City of St. Louis Park finds that the condition of the property located at 3317 Texas
Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is a health and safety hazard and contains a
hazardous building within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15.3.
3. The City’s legal counsel, Campbell Knutson, P.A., 317 Eagandale Office Center, 1380
Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, is directed to serve the Demolition Order
and to proceed with enforcement in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Biulding - 3317 Texas Ave South Page 4
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Biulding - 3317 Texas Ave South Page 5
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Biulding - 3317 Texas Ave South Page 6
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Abatement of Hazardous Biulding - 3317 Texas Ave South Page 7
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Change Order
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Order #4 to City Contract 79-09, St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center (MSC)
Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order #4 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2009 the City Council awarded the contract for the MSC Renovation Project to
Jorgenson Construction Inc. in the amount of $8,164,000.
This report covers 23 minor change orders totaling $36,569. These changes, which include deducts
and additions, are not unusual to occur with a project such as this where renovations and new
construction meld with the existing building details and existing components are discovered to be in
need of repair/replacement.
Three of change orders in parentheses are cost reductions as a result of City and contractor working
together to continue to value engineer the project.
Proposal Requests by City or Architect
PR #13 Trench drain reconfiguration at wash bay 6,518
PR #18 Add scuppers at existing roof 660
PR #21 Replace drains at maintenance bay 4,272
PR #31 Add gyp soffits at exposed beams 1,483
PR #33 Delete an exit sign ( 175)
PR #36 Modify HVAC at sign shop 2,470
PR #38 Delete one-ton hoist ( 2,700)
PR #39 Add door from corridor to office 3,354
PR #40 Add gyp soffits at perimeter of 1st floor 5,515
PR #45 Delete furnace unit at rooms 169/170 ( 2,594)
PR #46 Add data outlets in Multi-purpose room 127
PR #48 Added steel at relocating bracing 552
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g ) Page 2
Subject: Change Order #4 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
Proposal Requests by General Contractor
GCPR#40 Add acid tank to avoid racking 768
GCPR#41 Reroute underground office piping to avoid
disruptions
1,496
GCPR#43 Add one bracket at canopy 611
GCPR#45 Reconfigure piping at existing hand sink 766
GCPR#46 Add venting at flammable wastes 1,437
GCPR#51 Add waterproofing at elevator shaft 1,980
GCPR#52 Security wiring 2,774
GCPR#53 Add 9-door receivers at two overhead doors 99
GCPR#56 Additional wiring at overhead doors 1,795
GCPR#57 Add overflow drain at existing roof 4,045
GCPR#58 Add isolation valves at water lines 1,316
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Original Contract $8,164,000
Change Order #1-approved 10/5/2009 (107,073)
Change Order #2 –approved 12/7/2009 98,541
Change Order #3 – approved 1/19/2010 28,319
Change Order #4 36,569
Revised Contract Amount $8,220,356
The total MSC Renovation Project budget is $9.5 million for all design and construction costs.
Please note that the contingency budget built into this project is covering the cost of the change
orders.
CONTRACT TERMS:
All remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction related to environmental
stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, Manager
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3129 Jersey Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line
at 3129 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0176.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None - The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Todd Bistodeau, owner of the single family residence at 3129 Jersey Avenue South, has requested the City
to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his/her home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines
for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special
assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $2,100.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3129 Jersey Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3129 JERSEY AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0176
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3129 Jersey Avenue South has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single
family residence located at 3129 Jersey Avenue South: and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $2,100.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary
to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
David Klumpner Retirement Recognition Resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution of the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, recognizing the
contributions of and expressing appreciation to David Klumpner.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service
will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager and City Council.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors David Klumpner for his years of
service. Mr. Klumpner has declined to attend the Council meeting for a presentation so this consent
item will put his resolution into public record and he will be mailed an official copy for his records.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: David Klumpner Retirement Recognition Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA,
RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION TO DAVID KLUMPNER
WHEREAS, David Klumpner began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 31
years ago on December 4, 1978; and
WHEREAS, David has dedicated most of his adult life keeping the streets of St. Louis Park free
of potholes, leaves, a large variety of household junk, and of course, snow and ice; and
WHEREAS, David was able to “find” any manhole cover while plowing, regardless of snow
depth, yet somehow miss the curb line at the same time; and
WHEREAS, David took great pride in his length of public service and enjoyed challenging his
peers to better him; and
WHEREAS, David has been a dependable employee dedicated to finding the most efficient and
effective means of serving the residents of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, David will spend even more time hunting, fishing, golfing, and (unfortunately for
his wife, Kay) relaxing at his lake home in McGregor;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Works Public Service
Worker David Klumpner for his great contributions and 31 years of dedicated service to the City of
St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
January 20, 2010
7 p.m. - Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Christina Barberot, George Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, Kirk
Hawkinson and Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jenny Coig, Sam Flumerfelt, and George Foulkes
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Vaughan, Cindy Walsh and Stacy Voelker
1. Call to Order
George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. Presentation: None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. December 2, 2009
Commissioner Barberot made a motion to approve the December 2, 2009 minutes. The
motion passed 5 - 0.
4. New Business
a. Emerald Ash Borer Update
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, advised the Commission that a preparedness
grant in the amount of $89,800 was received to assist in dealing with Emerald Ash Borer.
Mr. Vaughan provided a history of Emerald Ash Borer which recently came from Detroit
Michigan and is now into Minnesota. The insect has only been found in St. Paul, but could
potentially infest the metro area and northern Minnesota that has approximately 900 million
Black Ash trees. We are unsure how fast it will spread to St. Louis Park from St. Paul.
The insect lays eggs on the ash trees then feeds on nutrients of the tree which cuts off
nutrition to the tree. They continue to lay eggs all over the tree. The larvae then become a
beetle which flies to the next ash tree. The insect flies only one to two miles on its own. The
moving of firewood is the main cause of the spread of this insect. There is no protection for
these trees and it is approximately three years to see symptoms of the beetles, at which time
the tree is already dead.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
Mr. Vaughan indicated staff recently completed an inventory of ash trees located on
boulevards and rated them according to their age or status. Older, stressed trees will attract
beetles sooner than the young, strong trees. Staff will utilize the grant money to start
preparing for the beetle.
Ms. Barberot inquired if any of the funding is being used to educate residents; Mr. Vaughan
advised money is allotted for educating the public. To remove an approximate 15” diameter
tree, the cost would be under $500 advised Mr. Vaughan. Ms. Barberot inquired if any
assistance provided to individuals in tough economic times. Ms. Walsh advised the grant
money is not available for assistance, but the city acquires bids to ensure the best cost for
residents. There is a potential to acquire more grant money if the beetle arrives, which may
be able to fund subsidizing, advised Mr. Vaughan. Tree removal is recommended between
October 1 and April 1. The city has a five-year contract with District Energy located on
Colorado Ave S. who has a compliance agreement with the Department of Agriculture to
properly dispose of the trees in a chip/mulch form.
Mr. Vaughan advised many Ash trees were planted after Dutch elm hit the area. It is
recommended to diversify tree species. If you have Ash trees now, plant other species in case
the Ash trees need to be removed. Mr. Hawkinson inquired what tree to plant and Mr.
Vaughan advised there are new varieties including diseased resistant elms like the Princeton
Elms. Mr. Vaughan can recommend trees to residents.
A tree management plan will be devised, Ms. Walsh indicated, which will be provided to the
City Council and the Commission.
b. Park Recycling History and Current Status
Mr. Vaughan reviewed the process to find which recycling container worked best in our
parks as the largest issue with recycling containers is contamination. The city is promoting
the use of these containers and has sent a letter to all Associations encouraging their use. The
containers are not in every park at this time as the city does not have the operations to empty
or refurbish the containers in every park. Plastic bottles are mostly thrown due to lack of
market for plastic bottles Ms. Walsh indicated. Mr. Vaughan advised there is a low market
for glass also. Cans are very marketable as they can turn into new cans in six weeks.
The high-traffic areas are continually reviewed and containers are placed near those areas,
indicated Mr. Vaughan. Members discussed ways to encourage recycling including limiting
the sale of recyclable items from city sites. Ms. Walsh and Mr. Vaughan advised that the city
cannot tell vendors what they can or cannot sell. Staff will consider suggestions brought
forth.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
c. Artificial Turf at High School Stadium
Item c. was added per Steve Hallfin. Mr. Hallfin advised the Commission that Benilde-St.
Margaret is adding artificial turf this year or next. He feels it would be beneficial, and a cost
savings, for the city to add artificial turf to a field at the High School. The city would own
the field at the High School but allow them to use. Mr. Hallfin indicated he wrote a letter on
his own behalf indicating this is a good time to utilize the park dedication money that has
been collected over the past years for the artificial turf. Mr. Hallfin suggested the
Commission recommend to the City Council to continue with the study and agree that it
would be a good time to proceed. The field at the High School has less than 19 uses
throughout the year.
Ms. Walsh advised members Andy Ewald and she are currently researching facts as directed
by the City Council. Benilde-St. Margaret is scheduled to add artificial turf this year. There
may or may not be a savings to add turf at the same time as BSM. Staff was directed to
complete a feasibility study at this time which includes expenses, revenue sources,
partnerships, and potential uses. The study will be presented to the City Council and School
board when complete Ms. Walsh advised.
Ms. Barberot inquired on the environmental impact of artificial turf. Drainage, storm water
retention and maintenance will be needed, advised Ms. Walsh. The cost to install the turf
will be a minimum of one million and the life expectancy is 13 years. Ms. Barberot wondered
if funding that large of a project would be acceptable in these tough economic times. Mr.
Hallfin feels the overall savings would be beneficial. Ms. Barberot inquired on the timeline.
The goal is to complete the study by the end of February, Ms. Walsh stated, and report the
findings to the City Council in March.
An update will be provided at the next Commission meeting per Mr. Hallfin’s request. Ms.
Walsh recommends Commission members wait until the study is complete prior to
commenting on the item; members agreed. Ms. Walsh advised staff is also reviewing the
condition of the buildings and bleachers around the High School as updates might need to
be completed at those facilities also.
Ms. Walsh will provide an update at the next meeting; members look forward to the result of
the study.
5. Old Business
a. Minnehaha Creek Clean Up ~ Event Details
The Commission viewed the new proposed area to clean which is by the Target located
south of Highway 7 by Knollwood Mall area. The area is all city owned, a parking lot is
available for use and there is a canoe landing located there also. Mr. Vaughan suggested
including the wooded area in the clean up also. Staff will work through Marney Olson, city’s
neighborhood liaison, to send neighborhoods information on the clean-up and also work
with Sara Krzesowiak, city/school volunteer office, to solicit for event volunteers.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
Members discussed dates and verified April 17 from 10 a.m. to noon would be best. Rain
back up date will be Sunday, April 18. Members will arrive at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Barberot will
contact Target for a donation of simple drinks and snacks. Members discussed other
businesses in that area that can be contacted to donate items such as coffee, cups, and
donuts.
Mr. Vaughan showed “Help us Beautify the Park” campaign which will be held this year
again encouraging participation throughout the city to care for our parks.
6. Communications
a. Chair
None.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Hallfin indicated the Baseball Association had their first meeting following their merge
and things are going well. Currently they are putting together by-laws and moving forward.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the use of the outdoor ice rink maintained by the Hockey
Association. The weekend of January 16 – 17 the Association celebrated their 40th
anniversary and it was regularly used. At this time staff is unsure of regular use.
c. Friends of the Arts Update
Mr. Hagemann announced community poet Diane Pecoraro was selected as Our Town
Voices and Verses. Mr. Hagemann briefed the members.
d. Program Report – Jim Vaughan
Mr. Vaughan distributed and reviewed the Environmental Division’s 2009 Overview
provided to members. In the hand-out trees, events, landscaping, weeds, Eagle Scout
projects, wildlife, erosion control/storm water, correspondence and miscellaneous items were
included.
Mr. Hagemann inquired on the change in subsidizing tree injections; Mr. Vaughan indicated
budget cuts prohibit subsiding at this time. Mr. Hagemann suggested negotiating discount
rates for residents in which Mr. Vaughan indicated Rainbow Tree Care is offering tree
injections to residents at reduced rates. Mr. Hagemann would like to prompt Rainbow Tree
Care, or another contractor, to facilitate offering a discount to residents. Mr. Worthington
feels the city might not be put in a position to negotiate contracts for everything. Ms. Walsh
advised the city can encourage contractors to provide good rates which have been
accomplished. Ms. Barberot suggested increasing the information to residents on who to call
for tree injections. Mr. Vaughan advised the city does provide a list of licensed contractors.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
e. Director Report
The Birchwood neighborhood meeting will be held on January 25 advised Ms. Walsh. On
January 11 public art ribbon cutting occurred just outside the movie theater in the West End
for the Aurora Organ lighting project.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Worthington to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. The motion passed 5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4j
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 17, 2010--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member), Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ross, CR Planning
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of February 24, 2010 and March 3, 2010
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes of
February 24, 2010 and March 3, 2010. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
3. Hearings
A. Galaxy Drive-In Conditional Use Permit and Plat
Public Hearing Postponed
Location: 3712 Quebec Ave. S. and 3715 Rhode Island Ave. S.
Applicant: JS Holdings, LLC
Case No.: 10-06-CUP and 10-07-S
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend that the conditional use permit and
plat application be continued to the April 7th meeting.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
B. Preliminary and Final Plat – Dental Office
Location: 3345 Dakota Ave. S.
Applicant: Jeff Miller
Case No.: 10-08-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Morris asked why the applicant was replatting existing platted land. He said
the applicant could easily write a legal description for the existing platted land, sell it and it
would be a subdivision.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Mr. Morrison replied the subdivision ordinance allows an exempt subdivision with a lot line
adjustment for the creation of one additional lot, however that exception only applies when
there are less than three platted lots. He added that the freight rail study is also about to
begin, and the applicant wanted to present this application for public comment.
Commissioner Morris noted that lot one and two were not shown on the exhibit. He
believed they should be labeled as lots. He asked if there was a variance for drainage and
utility easement.
Mr. Morrison responded the exhibit was for preliminary plat. The final plat will require a
variance for those easements.
Commissioner Morris stated that final plat was referenced in the report.
Chair Person asked if the railroad was selling the property.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, the railroad was selling the property.
Commissioner Kramer asked why the buyer and seller were doing the transaction.
Jeffrey Miller, applicant, explained he had owned the office for over 20 years but did not
own the parking lot. He didn’t have a formal agreement with the railroad and felt if he ever
wanted to sell the office property he need to purchase or lease the railroad property.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris stated he was not opposed to the request, but thought it should be
made conditional to staff making necessary corrections for the plat filing. If necessary, the
applicant needs to go through the variance process.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final
Plat named Dental Office Addition, subject to staff correction of any variances that may be
required.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
C. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-09-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Commissioner Kramer said he viewed WECS technology as being in its infancy and he asked
why the proposed ordinance language doesn’t include rooftop units. He suggested it would
be proactive to include them in the ordinance language.
Mr. Morrison asked the consultant, Brian Ross, to respond.
Brian Ross, CR Planning, replied that rooftop systems were in their infancy regarding
technological performance. Some have been marketed, but currently there aren’t any
systems that have much efficacy as wind energy. There are structural problems and they will
create vibration and possible structural damage to the building. There are no standards yet.
Mr. Ross went on to say that an ordinance like this is contemplated for a variety of different
reasons, which include safety and balancing between aesthetics and what someone might
want to do to their property. What most communities have determined is if they want to
put up something that may have a visual impact on neighbors, it should perform a
reasonable function and purpose that is a benefit to the community. He said he was unaware
of a system that was a reasonable wind system in the urban speeds they get on buildings. It is
difficult to engineer for the low speed winds in urban areas that don’t have much energy.
The building and other structures dampen the average wind speed around a building. To get
reasonable productivity, they need enough wind power to produce energy. Mr. Ross said he
wasn’t saying that someday they won’t be able to capture energy, but the current systems
pose more risk and aesthetic issues. The City of Minneapolis does allow roof mounted
WECS which include restrictions and engineering requirements.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, noted the idea that the technology was
in its infancy was part of the discussion and they expected to revisit the ordinance as the
technology changed. The ordinance can be amended when a system would make sense.
Mr. Morrison added the approach they were taking was encouraged by most wind advocates.
Staff wanted the WECS to be effective and appropriate for the community.
Commissioner Carper asked about Item (e)(4), WECS design requirements/color and finish,
which states grey and white would be allowed. He asked if it should indicate solid grey and
white would be allowed.
Mr. Morrison replied that could be added.
Commissioner Carper asked if there has been consideration about whether towers would be
used as cell phone relay towers or for radio transmission.
Mr. Morrison said it would need to be determined if the engineering of the tower could
withstand the weight. The setback and performance standards of WECS are the same as for
communication towers.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Mr. Ross stated there have been some instances where the turn blade can interfere with
transmission of certain kinds of radios. He didn’t know if that had been tested for smaller
systems.
Commissioner Carper asked as the ordinance is designed, would it be acceptable to put
additional equipment on the tower if it could withstand it structurally.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Person asked for follow-up on the phone towers. He asked if there were
instances of cell phone towers and wind generation towers together.
Mr. Ross replied he didn’t know of any instances of that.
Commissioner Person asked if a rooftop, a micro system or a system in an R4 zone would be
allowed under a special permit.
Mr. Morrison replied under the proposed ordinance the systems are only allowed in
commercial districts.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kramer indicated he would like to add language recognizing that this is an
evolving industry with the door open for discussion. He remarked that it is an important
green technology and the City needs to embrace new opportunities.
Chair Person said he agreed and asked if staff had suggestions to cover that issue.
Mr. Morrison noted staff could add language to the findings section that would indicate that
and make it known to the Council.
Commissioner Morris remarked that ordinances are amended often as the zoning code is a
living document. He said he was comfortable with the process.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the draft zoning ordinance
amendment pertaining to Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) with language
recognizing that this is an evolving industry. As technology evolves, there could be further
discussion showing a progressive attitude for green technology.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
D. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance relating to Electronic Signs
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-10-ZA
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked if one light flashing was considered a sign.
Mr. Morrison replied flashing lights were not permitted.
Commissioner Kramer asked if a marquee would be considered a flashing sign.
Mr. Morrison explained marquee signs would depend on the approval process, such as
through a variance in a Planned Unit Development, or part of a formal approval.
Commissioner Kramer asked about signs with computer generated text.
Ms. McMonigal said the surveys done by staff indicated there were more reader board signs
which would be allowed to continue, but they would have to change the message to three
seconds. She said staff was not aware of any computer generated signs in the City.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the definition of flashing was less than three seconds, and
if it was more than three seconds it was not flashing.
Mr. Morrison replied that was correct.
Commissioner Carper asked if signs that depict steam, water vapor or smoke would be
permitted.
Mr. Morrison replied the intent of the ordinance as written was to prohibit the appearance
of any type of motion. Staff would need to look at it and make a determination.
Commissioner Carper asked about graphically decorated vehicles which effectively become
billboards.
Mr. Morrison replied that staff currently controls and enforces regulations concerning
parked vehicles.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said he thought it was a good amendment, but he didn’t think the
three seconds went far enough. A three second change was still a flash. He wanted to voice
his opposition and could not vote to approve for that reason.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison agreed with that position and wondered if they should
move forward with a provision asking staff and Council to look at it and extend longer than
three, to possibly five seconds.
Ms. McMonigal noted they could make a motion with that amendment.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Commissioner Kramer asked if this was a safety issue or visual pollution.
Commissioner Robertson replied it was both a safety issue and visual pollution.
Commissioner Kramer stated he agreed it was distracting and could be a safety issue, but that
could be said for longer signs. If it was visual pollution, it was also distracting.
Commissioner Carper commented that he agreed with the three-second limitation. They
had taken testimony, had a great deal of discussion and had seen demonstrations on this. In
his opinion three seconds seemed to be the industry standard. There were no safety concerns
expressed by those present. He would vote against anything that would change what had
been recommended by City staff.
Commissioner Kramer understood the language and asked what they had gained by
regulating it to be three seconds versus two seconds. He was unsure what the improvement
was.
Commissioner Robertson stated there was no improvement.
Ms. McMonigal stated the big issue was about scrolling and moving. In looking at
changeable signs, staff looked at how quickly or slowly they were changing. Most were close
to three seconds now, so there was probably not a lot of change. The ordinance is more
about big movement signs, not the smaller signs on the local roads.
Commissioner Ford stated making the time limit two seconds longer might not seem like a
big difference, but switching it was like multiplying the time by three, which was actually a
very significant change.
Mr. Morrison stated staff conducted a survey of the existing signs in the city and most were
around three seconds. It seemed to be the standard. The only complaint staff received
regarded scrolling and flashing signage on Highway 100 with a one-second transition
between messages. That was one of the reasons for considering three seconds. He said most
signs in the community are relatively small and three seconds have been used to make those
signs more effective. If they went to longer messages, the message may keep a driver’s
attention longer.
Commissioner Robertson indicated if they were looking at driving distractions, three seconds
was less time than it took to see a sign and drive by it. They would see it change one or two
times and would anticipate the change and be distracted. If it were longer, the signs would
feel stationary and would not be distracting. Because it changes in a shorter time frame, it
was hard to come up with an appropriate length. Shorter lengths would be distracting. If it
appeared stationary, people wouldn’t be waiting for another message.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2010
Commissioner Morris spoke about the study session presentation which demonstrated 1-2-3
seconds testing. The Council wanted a recommendation. Most signs were one or two and
only a few were three. He said he supported the staff recommendation without any change
to the timing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison thought everything else in this amendment was the right
move. She was still bothered by three seconds, but supported the ordinance.
Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of the draft zoning ordinance
amendment pertaining to electronic signs and miscellaneous items.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
6-1 (Robertson opposed).
4. Other Business - None
5. Communications
Chair Person asked about St. Louis Park’s implementation of a green building policy. He
asked if staff could present the policy to the Planning Commission as well as a discussion
about Excelsior & Grand’s LEED certification.
Ms. McMonigal said a study session on those topics would be scheduled.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4k
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 17, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert
Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person,
Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal
OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Goldberg, Executive Director Beth El
Tom Whitlock, LA Damon Farber
Michaelea Whalen, PE, Sunde Engineering
Chuck Liddy, Architect, Miller-Dunwiddie
Daniel Green, Architect, Miller-Dunwiddie
1. Beth El Synagogue – 5224 26th Street West
Remodel and Expansion
Planner Adam Fulton began the meeting explaining that Beth El was at the meeting because a
Conditional Use Permit would be required for the remodel and expansion, and the group completed
introductions.
Dan Green, Architect, presented the plans for two additions that include a new accessible entry, an
expanded education center and a new vestibule. He noted they are planning to modify the turn-
around and drop-off area. They will be adding green space to balance the impervious surface area
resulting in no change to overall impervious surface area. They will be implementing some “best
management” practices and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has stated that no other
stormwater changes will be necessary. The project has already been reviewed by the City Engineer.
The plan is to excavate on the south side of the building to allow for the installation of windows in
the lower level. This way they can bring all of the school functions to the lower level. A retaining
wall will be added and graded for property drainage. Some of the surface water will now drain to 25
½ Street versus 26th Street.
Discussion of the proposed changes took place, with clarification on the surface water run-off,
driveway drop-off area, and entryways.
The Planning Commissioners expressed appreciation in seeing the changes in advance and thought
the proposal was reasonable and well thought out.
It was noted there will be a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, March 25th.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg McMonigal
Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4l
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
January 20, 2010
7 p.m. - Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Christina Barberot, George Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, Kirk
Hawkinson and Tom Worthington
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jenny Coig, Sam Flumerfelt, and George Foulkes
STAFF PRESENT: Jim Vaughan, Cindy Walsh and Stacy Voelker
1. Call to Order
George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. Presentation: None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. December 2, 2009
Commissioner Barberot made a motion to approve the December 2, 2009 minutes. The
motion passed 5 - 0.
4. New Business
a. Emerald Ash Borer Update
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, advised the Commission that a preparedness
grant in the amount of $89,800 was received to assist in dealing with Emerald Ash Borer.
Mr. Vaughan provided a history of Emerald Ash Borer which recently came from Detroit
Michigan and is now into Minnesota. The insect has only been found in St. Paul, but could
potentially infest the metro area and northern Minnesota that has approximately 900 million
Black Ash trees. We are unsure how fast it will spread to St. Louis Park from St. Paul.
The insect lays eggs on the ash trees then feeds on nutrients of the tree which cuts off
nutrition to the tree. They continue to lay eggs all over the tree. The larvae then become a
beetle which flies to the next ash tree. The insect flies only one to two miles on its own. The
moving of firewood is the main cause of the spread of this insect. There is no protection for
these trees and it is approximately three years to see symptoms of the beetles, at which time
the tree is already dead.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
Mr. Vaughan indicated staff recently completed an inventory of ash trees located on
boulevards and rated them according to their age or status. Older, stressed trees will attract
beetles sooner than the young, strong trees. Staff will utilize the grant money to start
preparing for the beetle.
Ms. Barberot inquired if any of the funding is being used to educate residents; Mr. Vaughan
advised money is allotted for educating the public. To remove an approximate 15” diameter
tree, the cost would be under $500 advised Mr. Vaughan. Ms. Barberot inquired if any
assistance provided to individuals in tough economic times. Ms. Walsh advised the grant
money is not available for assistance, but the city acquires bids to ensure the best cost for
residents. There is a potential to acquire more grant money if the beetle arrives, which may
be able to fund subsidizing, advised Mr. Vaughan. Tree removal is recommended between
October 1 and April 1. The city has a five-year contract with District Energy located on
Colorado Ave S. who has a compliance agreement with the Department of Agriculture to
properly dispose of the trees in a chip/mulch form.
Mr. Vaughan advised many Ash trees were planted after Dutch elm hit the area. It is
recommended to diversify tree species. If you have Ash trees now, plant other species in case
the Ash trees need to be removed. Mr. Hawkinson inquired what tree to plant and Mr.
Vaughan advised there are new varieties including diseased resistant elms like the Princeton
Elms. Mr. Vaughan can recommend trees to residents.
A tree management plan will be devised, Ms. Walsh indicated, which will be provided to the
City Council and the Commission.
b. Park Recycling History and Current Status
Mr. Vaughan reviewed the process to find which recycling container worked best in our
parks as the largest issue with recycling containers is contamination. The city is promoting
the use of these containers and has sent a letter to all Associations encouraging their use. The
containers are not in every park at this time as the city does not have the operations to empty
or refurbish the containers in every park. Plastic bottles are mostly thrown due to lack of
market for plastic bottles Ms. Walsh indicated. Mr. Vaughan advised there is a low market
for glass also. Cans are very marketable as they can turn into new cans in six weeks.
The high-traffic areas are continually reviewed and containers are placed near those areas,
indicated Mr. Vaughan. Members discussed ways to encourage recycling including limiting
the sale of recyclable items from city sites. Ms. Walsh and Mr. Vaughan advised that the city
cannot tell vendors what they can or cannot sell. Staff will consider suggestions brought
forth.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4l) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
c. Artificial Turf at High School Stadium
Item c. was added per Steve Hallfin. Mr. Hallfin advised the Commission that Benilde-St.
Margaret is adding artificial turf this year or next. He feels it would be beneficial, and a cost
savings, for the city to add artificial turf to a field at the High School. The city would own
the field at the High School but allow them to use. Mr. Hallfin indicated he wrote a letter on
his own behalf indicating this is a good time to utilize the park dedication money that has
been collected over the past years for the artificial turf. Mr. Hallfin suggested the
Commission recommend to the City Council to continue with the study and agree that it
would be a good time to proceed. The field at the High School has less than 19 uses
throughout the year.
Ms. Walsh advised members Andy Ewald and she are currently researching facts as directed
by the City Council. Benilde-St. Margaret is scheduled to add artificial turf this year. There
may or may not be a savings to add turf at the same time as BSM. Staff was directed to
complete a feasibility study at this time which includes expenses, revenue sources,
partnerships, and potential uses. The study will be presented to the City Council and School
board when complete Ms. Walsh advised.
Ms. Barberot inquired on the environmental impact of artificial turf. Drainage, storm water
retention and maintenance will be needed, advised Ms. Walsh. The cost to install the turf
will be a minimum of one million and the life expectancy is 13 years. Ms. Barberot wondered
if funding that large of a project would be acceptable in these tough economic times. Mr.
Hallfin feels the overall savings would be beneficial. Ms. Barberot inquired on the timeline.
The goal is to complete the study by the end of February, Ms. Walsh stated, and report the
findings to the City Council in March.
An update will be provided at the next Commission meeting per Mr. Hallfin’s request. Ms.
Walsh recommends Commission members wait until the study is complete prior to
commenting on the item; members agreed. Ms. Walsh advised staff is also reviewing the
condition of the buildings and bleachers around the High School as updates might need to
be completed at those facilities also.
Ms. Walsh will provide an update at the next meeting; members look forward to the result of
the study.
5. Old Business
a. Minnehaha Creek Clean Up ~ Event Details
The Commission viewed the new proposed area to clean which is by the Target located
south of Highway 7 by Knollwood Mall area. The area is all city owned, a parking lot is
available for use and there is a canoe landing located there also. Mr. Vaughan suggested
including the wooded area in the clean up also. Staff will work through Marney Olson, city’s
neighborhood liaison, to send neighborhoods information on the clean-up and also work
with Sara Krzesowiak, city/school volunteer office, to solicit for event volunteers.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4l) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
Members discussed dates and verified April 17 from 10 a.m. to noon would be best. Rain
back up date will be Sunday, April 18. Members will arrive at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Barberot will
contact Target for a donation of simple drinks and snacks. Members discussed other
businesses in that area that can be contacted to donate items such as coffee, cups, and
donuts.
Mr. Vaughan showed “Help us Beautify the Park” campaign which will be held this year
again encouraging participation throughout the city to care for our parks.
6. Communications
a. Chair
None.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Hallfin indicated the Baseball Association had their first meeting following their merge
and things are going well. Currently they are putting together by-laws and moving forward.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the use of the outdoor ice rink maintained by the Hockey
Association. The weekend of January 16 – 17 the Association celebrated their 40th
anniversary and it was regularly used. At this time staff is unsure of regular use.
c. Friends of the Arts Update
Mr. Hagemann announced community poet Diane Pecoraro was selected as Our Town
Voices and Verses. Mr. Hagemann briefed the members.
d. Program Report – Jim Vaughan
Mr. Vaughan distributed and reviewed the Environmental Division’s 2009 Overview
provided to members. In the hand-out trees, events, landscaping, weeds, Eagle Scout
projects, wildlife, erosion control/storm water, correspondence and miscellaneous items were
included.
Mr. Hagemann inquired on the change in subsidizing tree injections; Mr. Vaughan indicated
budget cuts prohibit subsiding at this time. Mr. Hagemann suggested negotiating discount
rates for residents in which Mr. Vaughan indicated Rainbow Tree Care is offering tree
injections to residents at reduced rates. Mr. Hagemann would like to prompt Rainbow Tree
Care, or another contractor, to facilitate offering a discount to residents. Mr. Worthington
feels the city might not be put in a position to negotiate contracts for everything. Ms. Walsh
advised the city can encourage contractors to provide good rates which have been
accomplished. Ms. Barberot suggested increasing the information to residents on who to call
for tree injections. Mr. Vaughan advised the city does provide a list of licensed contractors.
City Council Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4l) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 20, 2010
e. Director Report
The Birchwood neighborhood meeting will be held on January 25 advised Ms. Walsh. On
January 11 public art ribbon cutting occurred just outside the movie theater in the West End
for the Aurora Organ lighting project.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Worthington to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. The motion passed 5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4m
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April 3, 2010 through April 16, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
807.17PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLSA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
807.17
1,035.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYACTION FLEET INC
1,035.62
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
48.00
132.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
132.57
58.60GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
143.52PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
90.66PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
53.44ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.62VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
70.18WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
70.19SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
582.21
1,365.31IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,365.31
2,624.64FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
2,624.64
1,000.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
1,000.00
193.10MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSAPPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS
193.10
342.87GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
149.12ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
491.99
92.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEAUNE, KIM
92.00
54.95GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
54.95
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,138.34EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBALVIN, AARON
1,138.34
260.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
260.00
107.25-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBEACON ATHLETICS
1,667.25PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,560.00
121.19BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
121.19
70.51WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBERBOS, ZAK
70.51
157.50ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
157.50
223.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGBLAYLOCK PLUMBING CO
223.00
20,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBLUEPRINT LLC
20,000.00
107.46WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBRAMA, ELIZABETH
107.46
1,042.35PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,042.35
3,224.80EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBRINK, SCOTT
3,224.80
106.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARCAIN, DAVE
106.00
5,459.38ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
60.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE LEGAL SERVICES
30.00CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
75.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION LEGAL SERVICES
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
100.75EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
634.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND PROCEEDS FROM SALE
91.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
802.01RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
30.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
30.00SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
90.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
7,402.14
8,101.46DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
5,365.57GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,690.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,157.03
3,088.69FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
1,858.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
175.14WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
209.89NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
5,636.37WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
262.31REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
529.52SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
11,760.05
180.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHERICO, MATTHEW
180.00
273.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCHRYSLER JEEP
273.94
54.25FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
80.93WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
135.18
104.98INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
104.98
18,374.82ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
18,374.82
29.44WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCRAIG, STEVE
29.44
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
15.98SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
15.98
121.72POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
27.49NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11.85ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
161.06
550.27WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
550.27
481.44BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
66.29VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
547.73
5,337.64INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
5,337.64
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEDEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
510.00
266.50ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
266.50
279.91HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEDEZALE, JODI
279.91
2,144.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
166.32HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
2,310.32
4.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSDUPREE, SCOTT
4.25
3,314.24ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
3,314.24
1,163.87SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSELECTRIC PUMP INC
1,163.87
1,464.50WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAIN
1,464.50
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
193.10SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GASELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
193.10
21.11PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
21.11
140.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC
140.00
22.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSENGINEERING MINNESOTA MAGAZINE
22.00
103.18PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
103.18
11,544.64TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTERS DIGITAL
11,544.64
7,365.76IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEESRI
7,365.76
157.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
157.25
10.48NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH POSTAGEFEDEX
810.89SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
821.37
447.49ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
447.49
54.31-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFLEX-O-LITE
844.31PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
790.00
205.03WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFLICK, KIMBERLY
205.03
37.94HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSEFOSSE, ALI
37.94
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFOWLER ELECTRIC COMPANY
5.33
26.41VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
26.41
1,660.44WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
1,660.44
1,948.37DATA SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
1,948.37
100.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGUHANICK, MELISSA
100.00
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGUNSTAD, MARK
450.00
177.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHACH CO
177.78
263.86WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHANSON, LISA
263.86
49.53WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHASLERUD, CARRIE
49.53
8,563.07WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
1,400.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
9,963.07
108.59-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHCI CHEMTEC INC
1,688.09PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,579.50
275.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHEALTHSOURCE SOLUTIONS LLC
275.00
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
1,056.00
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
87.85PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
87.85
46.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHERKENHOFF, TOM
46.00
20.05PAINTINGBLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
20.05
14,500.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOLLYWOOD PYROTECHNICS INC
14,500.00
20.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
235.46GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.38PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
136.37PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
460.59PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
66.49TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
369.74PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11.56WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.22SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,332.81
71.15GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
3.73POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
134.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.26SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
226.79
47.74GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
160.30PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
208.04
52.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
52.63
102.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIAEI
102.00
45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIATN
45.00
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,784.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,784.95
97.09WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSINDELCO
97.09
106.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
106.42
82.71ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
85.29POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
168.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS
225.00
12.10PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S HARDWARE
1.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.64
7.29VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
7.29
64.91WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, ROGER
64.91
40.08PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
40.08
972.56PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESKEITH'S TARPS INC
972.56
150.06WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKNAEBLE, PETER
150.06
17.60BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIESKRZESOWIAK, SARAH
13.59BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
31.19
6,852.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
6,852.00
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
120.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
20.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
140.00
6,769.04UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
6,769.04
77.25POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
77.25
900.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
900.82
207.06ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEMACKENZIE & FRIENDS, INC
207.06
56,432.19CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC
56,432.19
138.38FINANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMATRIX LASER CARE INC
138.38
67.33WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
67.33
82.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION ENR
82.00
229.00TV PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMCHUGH, JOHN T
229.00
30.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMEHA
30.00
94.86ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESMENARDS
50.79ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
81.18RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
111.96PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
25.60WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
370.39
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
902.41POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
902.41
27,027.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
330,710.28
732.00POLICE G & A TRAININGMHSRC
732.00
950.85BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMIDWEST OVERHEAD CRANE CORP
950.85
555.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
555.00
96.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
96.00
149.04EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
149.04
1,327.06EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,327.06
50.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
50.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
156.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
156.36
250.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
250.00
1,213.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
74.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
102.59BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
108.55VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.66GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,518.98
1,645.62SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
1,730.93SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
398.74SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,775.29
56.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNELSON 2 LLC
56.25
15,190.00POLICE G & A OTHER RECOVERIESNORTHWEST DRUG TASKFORCE
15,190.00
11,783.03COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
11,783.03
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
57.45SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT
943.26SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
83.04POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
65.90SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,149.65
1,564.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,564.50
179.35EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
179.35
13,083.32TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOSTVIG TREE INC
13,083.32
160.83WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSPAINTERS GEAR INC
160.84SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
321.67
115.50INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
115.50
47.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSPETTY CASH
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
47.00
46.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPIEHL, KEISHA
46.00
657.28WATER UTILITY G&A YARD WASTE SERVICEPLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT
657.28
185.00CLERICALTRAININGPLEAA
185.00
543.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
543.00
2,334.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
2,334.25
360.60PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
360.60
329.02WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
329.02SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
329.02SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
329.03STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,316.09
126.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
126.00
77.45WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPROVIDENT REAL ESTATE OPPORTUN
77.45
37.30VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
37.30
70.99IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
104.80COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
175.79
163.79WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
163.79SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
163.78SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
163.78STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
655.14
580.56PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIREED CONSTRUCTION DATA
580.56
32.03ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSESAM'S CLUB
10.08-ORGANIZED REC G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
21.52WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
43.47
100.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSATRANG, JUDITH
100.00
21.40PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
21.40
120.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
120.00
46.37PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
46.37
159.50PLUMBING MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
159.50
252.65INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIMMONS, DENISE
252.65
495.69-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSL-SERCO
7,705.69WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,210.00
69.59HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLESOUTH OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AS
69.59
40.43WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSSPS COMPANIES INC
40.43
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALSTANDARD HEATING & A/C
48.00
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
443.60WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTONE, KATHLEEN
443.60
400.73PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIESSTORAGE EQUIPMENT INC
400.73
119.37PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
119.37
1,204.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
1,204.27
182.33ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
117.98PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL NOTICES
300.31
282,791.13SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSN
282,791.13
1,039.60GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESUPERIOR FORD
1,039.60
2,004.10IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
2,004.10
45.26ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
53.29HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.84COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
41.70IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.98ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
50.28FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
112.56COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.56FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
121.05POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
76.83OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
57.81INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
43.61PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
56.83ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
68.74ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.08ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
17.08WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.05REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.59HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,881.77EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,810.91
46.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUETHOMAS, JENNIFER
46.00
184.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
184.00
80.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, MEGAN
80.00
702.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
702.85
453.69ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
453.69
1,221.19ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESTKDA
1,221.19
675.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREHUS
675.00
423.81PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC
423.81
25,170.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
8,632.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
33,802.00
75.35POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
374.53SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
373.83SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
717.41PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
498.15RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
790.98COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,830.25
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
872.10TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
872.10
32.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEUPS STORE
32.52
325.42EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUS DEPT OF EDUCATION
325.42
97.34POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
558.80OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
656.14
257.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
257.00
122.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
122.81
217.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
217.00
6.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSVEBER, MARIA
6.11
73.12COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.12
23.46PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
23.46
16.71-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSWAGNER INSTRUMENTS
259.71INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
243.00
56,902.90SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT
23,731.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
4/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:55:30R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
4/16/2010 -4/3/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28,854.80SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
109,489.20
669.60WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
669.60
87.64PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESWEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN
87.64
96.00REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
96.00
1,666.01SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESWESTWOOD SPORTS
1,666.01
858.20MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
858.20
123.98VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESWIPERS & WIPES INC
123.98
72.14PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
72.14
11,844.98FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
181.26PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,475.68ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
253.72WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
16.27OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
233.17OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
25,005.08
5,900.14TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
5,900.14
Report Totals 1,116,690.43
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4n
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee
DuFour, Trinicia Hill
Commissioner Justin Kaufman arrived at 5:11 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for February, 2010
The Board minutes of February 10, 2010 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
b. Amendment of Wayside House Inc. Project-Based Housing Choice Voucher
Contract
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the Wayside Contract, stating that the term of the
amendment will be limited to one year, to allow staff to assess whether housing
trends or conversion of MHOP units at Louisiana Court could warrant changes to
the contract in the future. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to authorize execution of
the Amendment to the Housing Assistance Payments Contract between the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park and The Wayside House, Inc. to administer 20 units of
project-based Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance (PBA), for the
period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011, at Wayside properties located at 1341
and 1349 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park. Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes March 10, 2010
a. Approval of Housing Authority Procurement Policy, Resolution No. 591
Ms. Schnitker distributed two updates to the revised Procurement Policy. Staff
revised the Procurement Policy based on Board input and comments received after a
review by HUD staff. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adopt Resolution No.
591, Resolution Approving Amendment to the Administrative Policies, Procurement
Policy of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. Commissioner Kaufman
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
c. Approval of Financial Services Contract
Ms. Schnitker requested Board approval of a contract with the City to continue to
provide financial services for the HA for FYE December 31, 2011. Since the next
fiscal year is an extended 21-month transition period, the proposed fee is $84,557, a
prorated fee based on the last annual fee of $43,318. Commissioner Fillbrandt
moved to authorize the Chair and Executive Director to enter into an agreement
with the City of St. Louis Park for the provision of financial services to the HA, for a
fee of $84,557, for the term April 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011.
Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Approval of Section 8 Utility Allowances, Resolution No. 592
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the revised Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher utility
allowances, noting that the allowances for gas went down slightly while electrical and
water rates went up slightly. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve Resolution
No. 592, Resolution of the St. Louis Park Housing Authority Amending the Section
8 Utility Allowance Schedule, and Commission Fillbrandt seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
e. Louisiana Court Update
Ms. Schnitker presented an update on the financial and operational status of Project
for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Development. Although no action is required
of the HA at this time, City Council will most likely be asked to consider supporting
the refinancing of the bonds issued for the Louisiana Court update project, due to
recently reduced interest rates.
f. 2009 Housing Activity Report
Ms. Schnitker briefly reviewed the 2009 Housing Activity Report. The report was
provided to the City Council at its February 22, 2010 Study Session and to the
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 3
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes March 10, 2010
Planning Commission at its March 3, 2010 meeting. No action is required of the
Housing Authority Board.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List for March, 2010
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for March, 2010
2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Kaufman
seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolutions awarding the sale of:
• Approximately $3,125,000 Taxable G.O. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series
2010A; and
• Approximately $5,985,000 G.O. Bonds, Series 2010B
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to issue bonds for the Sunset Ridge HIA which will be paid through
certifying a housing improvement area fee on each unit to support the 105% debt service coverage
beginning in 2011?
Does the City Council wish to refund the 2001B G.O. Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds and 2003A
G.O. Bonds to provide interest rate savings for each issue?
Does the City Council wish to issue bonds to provide funds for capital improvement projects in the
Water and Storm Sewer funds which will be paid back through utility user charges?
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 2010 the City Council approved a resolution providing for the sale of $3,125,000
Taxable G.O. Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2010A and a $5,985,000 G.O.
Bonds, Series 2010B. The 2010A bond proceeds will be used to make capital improvements to the
Sunset Ridge Condominiums. Approximately $3,455,000 of the 2010B bond proceeds will be used
to refund both the 2001B G.O. Storm Sewer Revenue and 2003A G.O. bonds resulting in
approximate savings over the remaining terms of the bonds of $216,000. The remaining
approximate amount of $2,520,000 of the 2010B bonds will provide funding for capital
improvements in the Water and Storm Sewer funds.
These two bond issues are scheduled to be sold at 11:00 am on April 19, 2010. Results of the sale
will be presented at the Council meeting that evening. In addition, the outcome of the city’s bond
rating discussion with Standard & Poor’s will be presented. The resolution awarding the sale of
bonds will be completed with the sale results and presented at the Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Issuance of these bonds is necessary to provide funding for projects in the City and to complete the
current refunding of two existing bond issues to provide savings to the City.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The issuance of 2010A HIA bonds for the Sunset Ridge Condominium Association is consistent
with the City’s VISION of a well maintained and affordable housing stock.
Attachments: Resolution Awarding the Sale of Approximately $3,125,000 Taxable G.O.
Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Bonds, Series 2010A
Resolution Awarding the Sale of Approximately $5,985,000 G.O. Bonds,
Series 2010B
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, April 19, 2010,
commencing at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
* * * * * * * * *
The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals which
had been received for the purchase of the City’s approximately $3,125,000 Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A.
The City Controller and the City’s financial consultant presented a tabulation of the proposals
which had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The
proposals were as set forth in Exhibit A attached.
After due consideration of the proposals, Member _______________ then introduced the
following written resolution and moved its adoption, the reading of which had been dispensed with by
unanimous consent:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $___________
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA BONDS,
SERIES 2010A; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. Background. The City has previously established the Sunset Ridge Housing
Improvement Area (the “Housing Improvement Area”) in order to facilitate certain housing
improvements (the “Housing Improvements”) to property known as the Sunset Ridge Condominium
Association. The City Council has previously imposed a housing improvement fee (the “Housing
Fees”) on housing units located in the Housing Improvement Area in order to finance the Housing
Improvements.
1.02. Authorization. Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 through 428A.21 and Chapter
475, as amended, authorize the City to issue bonds in the amount necessary to defray the costs of the
Housing Improvements, which costs are payable primarily from the Housing Fees and may be further
secured by the pledge of the City’s full faith, credit and taxing power.
1.03. Award to the Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of
___________________________________ (the “Purchaser”) to purchase $____________ Taxable
General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A (the “Bonds”) of the City
described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is
accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $________________, for Bonds
bearing interest as follows:
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
2012 2022
2013 2023
2014 2024
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
True interest cost: ________%.
1.04. Purchase Contract. The City Controller is directed to retain the good faith check of the
Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the
unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and the City Manager are directed to execute a contract
with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.05. Terms and Principal Amounts of the Bonds. The City shall forthwith issue and
sell the Bonds in the total principal amount of $______________, originally dated May 7,
2010, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-
1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and which mature on February 1 in the years
and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2012 2022
2013 2023
2014 2024
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
1.06. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2019, and on any date
thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2020. Redemption may be in whole or in part
and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all
Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 6 hereof)
of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of
each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot
the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments will be at a price of
par plus accrued interest.
1.07. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds shall be issued only in fully registered form. The interest
thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or draft
issued by the Registrar described herein.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment
date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available
for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been
paid or made available for payment, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of the date of
authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case
such Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds will be payable on
February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2011, to the owner of record thereof as
of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such
day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint, and shall maintain, a bond registrar, transfer agent,
authenticating agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and
duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond
register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the
registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or
exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney
duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in
the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate
principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however,
close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding
each interest payment date and until such interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for
exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate
principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney in
writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange will be
promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied
that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and
that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the
refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond,
whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of,
the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so made to a
registered owner or upon the owner’s order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge
the liability upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For a transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax,
fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is
destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number,
maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the
payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and,
in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence
satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and
upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and
amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must
be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar
and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen
or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is
not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice
thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of
the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond
to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by
publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any
registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any proceeding for the
redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the
specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the
place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services Corporation,
Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to
execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation
of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company
authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar.
The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed.
The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days’ notice and upon the appointment of a
successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its
possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On
or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Controller
must transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and
the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of
the originals. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds
ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile will nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery.
Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to
any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond
has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar.
Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The
executed certificate of authentication on each Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated
and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and
authenticated, the City Manager shall deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase
price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not
obligated to see to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds one
or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such changes
as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution
and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. The Bonds will be printed in substantially the following form:
No. R-__ $___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA BONDS,
SERIES 2010A
Interest Rate
Maturity
Date of
Original Issue
CUSIP
February 1, 20__ May 7, 2010
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received
hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum
of $__________ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the
annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1,
2011, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day
(whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon
presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States
of America by check or draft by Bond Trust Services Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as Bond
Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the
Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the
same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are
hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2019, and on any date thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or
after February 1, 2020. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City
and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for
redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of the particular amount of such
maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such
maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in
such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $_____________, all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to
a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 19, 2010 (the “Resolution”), for the purpose of
providing money to aid in financing various housing improvements within a housing improvement area
in the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to
428A.21, and Chapter 475, as amended, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable
primarily from certain housing improvement fees levied or to be levied on property within the housing
improvement area in which the housing improvements are located, as set forth in the Resolution to
which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and
credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated
itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in
revenues pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this
series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple
thereof of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is
transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered
owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof
together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
registered owner or the owner’s attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other
authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to
be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount,
bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax,
fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is
registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and the City’s
home rule charter to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the
issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in
accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so
required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any
constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under
the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond Registrar
by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of
the Mayor and the City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below.
Dated: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
City Manager Mayor
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the
books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of Registration
Registered Owner
Signature of
Officer of Registrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
BOND TRUST SERVICES
CORPORATION
By
Authorized Representative
_________________________________
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _________ Custodian _________
in common (Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . . . . .
not as tenants in common (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to transfer the
said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the
premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it
appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration
or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer
Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program (“SEMP”), the New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other such “signature guarantee
program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP
or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the
assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address: _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
(Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held
by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other identifying
number of assignee
___________________________________
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
3.02. Approving Legal Opinion. The City Clerk shall obtain a copy of the proposed approving
legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which shall be complete
except as to dating thereof and shall cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. Funds and Accounts. For the convenience and proper administration of the moneys to
be borrowed and repaid on the Bonds, and to make adequate and specific security to the purchasers and
holders of the Bonds from time to time, there is hereby created a separate special fund of the City to be
known as the Sunset Ridge Housing Improvement Area Fund (the “Housing Fund”), which fund will
be continued and maintained as a permanent fund of the City until all the Bonds are paid. Within the
Housing Fund there will be established and maintained separate accounts as follows:
(a) The Project Fund, into which fund will be deposited proceeds of the Bonds in the
amount of $_______________. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City shall also deposit into
the Project Fund prepaid Housing Fees in the amount of $830,195, which Housing Fees were
levied on property within the Housing Improvement Area and were prepaid pursuant to the
resolution levying the Housing Fees. Of the total amount deposited in the Project Fund,
$____________ will be disbursed to the City to pay the administrative costs of the Housing
Improvement Area. The balance of funds in the Project Fund shall be disbursed to pay the
costs of the Housing Improvements in accordance with the terms of the Development
Agreement, between the City and Sunset Ridge Condominium Association (the “Association”),
dated as of March 1, 2010 (the “Development Agreement”). Interest earnings from moneys in
the Project Fund shall be credited to the Project Fund.
(b) The Costs of Issuance Fund, into which fund will be deposited proceeds of the
Bonds in the amount of $_________, which amount will be used solely for the purpose of
paying costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward amounts in
the Costs of Issuance Fund allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts
payable to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered as Bond Counsel) to U.S. Trust Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City’s
financial adviser, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Any other administrative costs shall be disbursed
upon presentation to the City of proper invoices for such costs. Any balance remaining in the
Costs of Issuance Fund after all disbursements for administrative and issuance expenses shall be
transferred to the Project Fund. Interest earnings from moneys in the Costs of Issuance Fund
shall be credited to the Surplus Fund hereafter created.
(c) The Debt Service Fund, into which fund will be deposited from Bond proceeds
$________, which represents capitalized interest through February 1, 20__, together with
Housing Fees in the amount necessary to pay when due the principal and interest on the Bonds.
Interest earnings from moneys in the Debt Service Fund shall be credited to the Debt Service
Fund.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
(d) The Surplus Fund, into which fund will be deposited all Housing Fees in excess of
the amounts required to be deposited into the Debt Service Fund and the Project Fund under
this Section. Amounts in the Surplus Fund shall be applied and disbursed in accordance with
the Development Agreement. Interest earnings from moneys in the Surplus Fund shall be
credited to the Surplus Fund.
4.02. Deposit of Funds. Money in the funds and accounts created by this Resolution will be
kept separate from other municipal funds and deposited only in a bank or banks which are members of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). Deposits which cause the aggregate deposits of
the City in any one bank to be in excess of the amount insured by FDIC must be continuously secured
in the manner provided by law for the investment of municipal funds. In the event excess moneys are
held in any of the funds created pursuant to Section 4.01 of this Resolution, such excess moneys shall be
applied and disbursed in accordance with the Development Agreement.
4.03. Covenants Regarding Housing Improvements. The City hereby covenants with the
holders from time to time of the Bonds as follows:
(a) The City has caused or will cause the Housing Fees for the Housing
Improvements in the Housing Improvement Area to be promptly levied against housing units
in such Area so that the first installment will be collectible not later than 2011 and will take all
steps necessary to assure prompt collection. The City Council will cause to be taken with due
diligence all further actions that are required under the Development Agreement for the
construction of the Housing Improvements financed wholly or partly from the proceeds of the
Bonds, and will take all further actions necessary for the final and valid levy of the Housing Fees
and the appropriation of any other funds needed to pay the Bonds and interest thereon when
due.
(b) In the event of any current or anticipated deficiency in Housing Fees (after
taking into account any revenues collected or anticipated to be collected under the
Development Agreement), the City Council will levy ad valorem taxes in the amount of the
current or anticipated deficiency.
(c) The City will keep complete and accurate books and records showing receipts
and disbursements in connection with the Housing Improvements, Housing Fees levied
therefor and other funds appropriated for their payment, collections thereof and disbursements
therefrom, and monies on hand.
4.04. No Tax Levy Required. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of
Housing Fees for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five percent
in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds,
and that no tax levy is needed at this time.
4.05. Taxpayer Services Division Manager’s Certificate as to Registration. The City Clerk is
authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Taxpayer Services Division
Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
475.63.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Section 5. Authentication of Transcript.
5.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to
prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of
proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of
the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts
within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control,
relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such instruments, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein.
5.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, the City Manager and the City
Controller are authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement
prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of
their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts
and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement.
Section 6. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
6.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or
printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.05 hereof. Upon initial
issuance, the ownership of each such Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York,
New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this Section, all of the
outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of
Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
6.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the
Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar and the Paying
Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial
institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the “Participants”)
or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but
not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC,
Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to
any Participant or any other person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration
books kept by the Registrar, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of
redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner
of Bonds, or any amount with respect to principal of or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar
and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the
registration books kept by the Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose
of payment of principal and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers
with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of and
interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the
registration books kept by the Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy
and discharge the City’s obligations with respect to payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds to
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in
the registration books kept by the Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of
this Resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC
has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.,” will
refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly
deliver a copy of the same to the Registrar and the Paying Agent.
6.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the “Representation Letter”) which shall govern payment of
principal of and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or
Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action
necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation Letter with respect to the Registrar
and Paying Agent, respectively, to at all times be complied with.
6.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the City
Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interest in the Bonds
that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the
Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue,
transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in
accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its
services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its
responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities
depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in
accordance with this Resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and
method of payment thereof.
6.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all
payments with respect to principal of and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such
Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in the Representation Letter.
Section 7. Continuing Disclosure.
7.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City hereby
covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing
Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to
comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of default with
respect to the Bonds; however, and Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and
appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to
comply with its obligations under this section.
7.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate”
means that certain continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and
dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended
from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Section 8. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this
Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to holders of the Bonds
will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full
payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect. The City
may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before
that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any Bond should not be paid when due,
it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment
thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
The foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember ______________. The following
voted in favor of the resolution:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on April 19,
2010, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the
minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $______________ Taxable General Obligation
Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A of the City.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this ______
day of _______________, 2010.
City Clerk
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSALS
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
STATE OF MINNESOTA TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER‘S
CERTIFICATE AS TO
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN REGISTRATION WHERE NO
AD
VALOREM TAX LEVY
I, the undersigned Taxpayer Services Division Manager, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby
certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on April
19, 2010, relating to Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2010A, in
the amount of $________________, dated May 7, 2010, has been filed in my office and said
obligations have been registered on the register of obligations in my office.
WITNESS My hand and official seal this ____ day of ____________, 2010.
Taxpayer Services Division Manager
Hennepin, Minnesota
(SEAL)
By
Deputy
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, April 19, 2010,
commencing at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
* * * * * * * * *
The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals
which had been received for the purchase of the City's approximately $5,985,000 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B.
The City Controller and the City’s financial consultant presented a tabulation of the
proposals that had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds.
The proposals were as set forth in Exhibit A attached.
In accordance with the official Terms of Proposal the following adjustments were made:
Principal Amount:
Maturities:
Minimum Purchase Price:
After due consideration of the proposals, Member ____________________ then introduced
the following written resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent,
and moved its adoption:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF
$___________ GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, SERIES 2010B
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City engineer has recommended the construction of various
improvements to the City’s water and sewer system (the “Project”).
(b) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and
Chapter 475 (the “Act”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of the Project (the “Project
Costs”) by the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City payable from the net revenues
of the water and sewer system.
(c) the City is also authorized by Section 475.67, subdivision 3 of the
Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund obligations and the interest
thereon before the due date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the
holders thereof, when determined by the City Council to be necessary or desirable for the
reduction of debt service cost to the City or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in
relation to the resources available for their payment;
(d) Section 475.67, subdivision 4 of the Act permits the sale of refunding
obligations during the six month period prior to the date on which the obligations to be
refunded may be called for redemption;
(e) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (the “Refunded Bonds”)
consist of the $3,265,000 General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B,
dated May 1, 2001 (the “Series 2001B Bonds”), of which $1,540,000 in principal amount is
currently outstanding and is callable on June 1, 2011; and the $4,145,000 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2003A, dated May 1, 2003 (the “Series 2003A Bonds”), of which
$1,825,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding and is callable on June 1, 2011.
(f) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of
the City that the City issue approximately $5,985,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 24
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
2010B (the “Bonds”) to (i) provide financing for the Project, and (ii) to refund the Refunded
Bonds in order to reduce debt service costs. The costs are presently estimated to be as
follows:
Construction Fund $2,485,000.00
Refunding Costs 3,410,890.00
Costs of Issuance 40,000.00
Underwriter’s Discount 47,880.00
Rounding Amount 1,230.00
Total Issue $5,985,000.00
1.02. The proposal of ____________________________ (the “Purchaser”) to purchase
$____________ General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B (the “Bonds”) of the City described in the
Terms of Proposal thereof is hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby
accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of $____________ plus accrued
interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest as follows:
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
2011 2019
2012 2020
2013 2021
2014 2022
2015 2023
2016 2024
2017 2025
2018
True interest cost: _________%
1.03. The sum of $___________ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess of
$__________ will be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City Controller is
directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the
Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and
City Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to the Act in the total
principal amount of $__________, originally dated May 7, 2010, in the denomination of $5,000
each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set
forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 25
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Year Amount Year Amount
2011 2019
2012 2020
2013 2021
2014 2022
2015 2023
2016 2024
2017 2025
2018
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2017, and on any day
thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2018. Redemption may be in whole or in
part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less
than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in
Section 8 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by
lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant
will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed.
Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
1.06. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by
check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as
of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment
date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the
Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2011, to the
registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City
and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 26
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and
the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or
exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by
the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney
duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and
deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a
like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar
may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the
month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner's
attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly
cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person
in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond,
whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account
of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes and payments so
made to registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and
discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the
owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds, sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for
any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or
exchange.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 27
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or
is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number,
maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon
the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith;
and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence
satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof,
and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form,
substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and
the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be
cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the
mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption
in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice
thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a
copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of
each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the
Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by
publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the
validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will
cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the
redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger
or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or
trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to
act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the
Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30
days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor
Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver
the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date,
without further order of this Council, the City Controller must transmit to the Registrar monies
sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and
the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on
the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, that signature or facsimile will
nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office
until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 28
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of
authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed
by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive
evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have
been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver the same to the
Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore
made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds
one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such
changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon
the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and
cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form:
No. R-_____ $________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 2010B
Date of
Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP
February 1, 20__ May 7, 2010
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation
in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value
received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the
principal sum of $__________ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the
date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year,
commencing February 1, 2011, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of
business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 29
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in
lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and
Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the
prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full
faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2017, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on
or after February 1, 2018. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are
called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular
amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's
interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial
ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus
accrued interest.
The City Council has designated the issue of Bonds of which this Bond forms a part as
"qualified tax exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial
institutions and within the $30 million limit allowed by the Code for the calendar year of issue.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $_________ all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest
rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 19, 2010 (the
“Resolution”), for the purpose of providing money to defray the expenses incurred and to be
incurred in constructing improvements to the water and sewer system of the City and to refund the
outstanding principal amount of certain general obligation bonds of the City, pursuant to and in full
conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 and Section 475.67, and the principal hereof
and interest hereon are payable in part from net revenues of the water and sewer system of the issuer
and in part from ad valorem taxes, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full
statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are
irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy
additional ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in water
and sewer net revenues and taxes pledged, which additional taxes may be levied without limitation as
to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in
denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond
is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the
registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,
duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in
exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 30
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the
same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date,
subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to
such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is
registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all
acts, conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota, to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to
and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the
City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed
as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to
exceed any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond
Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by
its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set
forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA
(Facsimile) (Facsimile)
City Manager Mayor
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 31
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
BOND TRUST SERVICES
CORPORATION
By
Authorized Representative
_________________________________
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond,
will be constructed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _________ Custodian _________
in common (Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . . . . .
not as tenants in common (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 32
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to transfer
the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution
in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as
it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange Medallion
Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program
("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Registrar
in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning
the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this Bond
is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 33
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the
books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Signature of
Date of Registration Registered Owner Officer of Registrar
Cede & Co.
________________________ Federal ID #13-2555119 _____________________
3.02. The City Clerk is directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion
of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to
dating thereof and to cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. (a) The Bonds are payable from the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B Debt
Service Fund (the “Debt Service Fund”) hereby created, and the proceeds of general taxes hereinafter
levied (the “Taxes”), and net revenues of the water and sewer system (the “Water and Sewer
Revenues”) levied or to be levied for the Project financed by the Bonds and the improvements
financed by the Refunded Bonds (defined hereafter), are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund.
If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money
in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Controller is directed to pay such principal or
interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for the advances
out of the proceeds of Water and Sewer Revenues and Taxes when collected. There is appropriated
to the Debt Service Fund (i) capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any, and (ii) any
amount over the minimum purchase price paid by the Purchaser.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in paragraph (a) of this
Section and less proceeds in the amount of $3,399,417.50 applied for redemption of the Refunded
Bonds under Section 5, together with any other funds appropriated for the Project and Water and
Sewer Revenues and Taxes collected during the construction of the Project, will be deposited in a
separate construction fund to be used solely to defray expenses of the Project and the payment of
principal and interest on the Bonds prior to the completion and payment of all costs of the Project.
When the Project is completed and the cost thereof paid, the construction account is to be closed
and subsequent collections of Water and Sewer Revenues and Taxes for the Project are to be
deposited in the Debt Service Fund.
(c) Proceeds in the amount of $1,558,251.25 will be deposited in the debt service fund
for the Series 2001B Bonds, and proceeds in the amount of $1,841,166.25 will be deposited in the
debt service fund for the Series 2003A Bonds. Such proceeds will be applied to the redemption and
prepayment of the Refunded Bonds as described in Section 5.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 34
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
4.02. The City Council covenants and agrees with the holders of the Bonds that so long as
any of the Bonds remain outstanding and unpaid, it will keep and enforce the following covenants
and agreements:
(a) The City will continue to maintain and efficiently operate the water and
sewer plant and system as public utilities and conveniences free from competition of other
like municipal utilities and will cause all revenues therefrom to be deposited in bank
accounts and credited to the water and sewer system accounts as hereinabove provided, and
will make no expenditures from those accounts except for a duly authorized purpose and in
accordance with this resolution.
(b) The City will also maintain the Debt Service Fund as a separate account in
the Water and Sewer Fund and will cause money to be credited thereto from time to time,
out of net revenues from the water and sewer plant and system and ad valorem taxes in sums
sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due.
(c) The City will keep and maintain proper and adequate books of records and
accounts separate from all other records of the City in which will be complete and correct
entries as to all transactions relating to the water and sewer plant and system and which will
be open to inspection and copying by any bondholder, or the bondholder’s agent or
attorney, at any reasonable time, and it will furnish certified transcripts therefrom upon
request and upon payment of a reasonable fee therefor, and said account will be audited at
least annually by a qualified public accountant and statements of such audit and report will
be furnished to all bondholders upon request.
(d) The City Council will cause persons handling revenues of the water and
sewer plant and system to be bonded in reasonable amounts for the protection of the City
and the bondholders and will cause the funds collected on account of the operations of the
water and sewer plant and system to be deposited in a bank whose deposits are guaranteed
under the Federal Deposit Insurance Law.
(e) The Council will keep the water and sewer plant and system insured at all
times against loss by fire, tornado and other risks customarily insured against with an insurer
or insurers in good standing, in such amounts as are customary for like plants, to protect the
holders, from time to time, of the Bonds and the City from any loss due to any such casualty
and will apply the proceeds of such insurance to make good any such loss.
(f) The City and each and all of its officers will punctually perform all duties
with reference to the water and sewer plant and system as required by law.
(g) The City will impose and collect charges of the nature authorized by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 at the times and in the amounts required to produce,
net revenues adequate to pay all principal and interest when due on the Bonds and to create
and maintain such reserves securing said payments as may be provided in this resolution.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 35
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
(h) The City Council will levy general ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in
the City, when required to meet any deficiency in net revenues.
4.04. It is hereby determined that upon the receipt of proceeds of the Bonds
(the “Proceeds”) for payment of the Refunded Bonds, an irrevocable appropriation to the debt
service fund for the Refunded Bonds will have been made within the meaning of Section 475.61,
subdivision 3 of the Act and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to certify such fact
to and request the Taxpayer Services Division Manager to cancel any and all tax levies made by the
resolution authorizing and approving the Refunded Bonds.
4.05. It is hereby determined that the estimated collection of the foregoing Taxes and
Water and Sewer Revenues will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet
when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levy herein provided will be
irrepealable until all of the Bonds are paid, provided that the City Manager may annually, at the time
the City makes its tax levies, certify to the Taxpayer Services Division Manager the amount available
in the Debt Service Fund to pay principal and interest due during the ensuing year, and the Taxpayer
Services Division Manager will thereupon reduce the levy collectible during such year by the amount
so certified.
4.06. Pledge of Tax Levy. For the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the
Bonds, there is levied a direct annual irrepealable ad valorem tax (Taxes) upon all of the taxable
property in the City, which will be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other
general taxes of the City. The taxes will be credited to the Debt Service Fund above provided and
will be in the years and amounts as follows (year stated being year of collection):
Year Levy
(See Attachment A)
4.07. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution
with the Taxpayer Services Division Manager and to obtain the certificate required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 475.63.
Section 5. Refunding; Findings; Redemption of Refunded Bonds.
5.01. The Refunded Bonds are the General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series
2001B, of the City, dated May 1, 2001, of which $1,540,000 in principal amount is callable on June
1, 2010 and the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003A, dated May 1, 2003, of which $1,825,000
in principal amount is callable on June 1, 2010. It is hereby found and determined that based upon
information presently available from the City's financial advisers, the issuance of the Bonds is
consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof and is necessary and desirable for the
reduction of debt service cost to the municipality.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 36
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
5.02. It is hereby found and determined that the Proceeds will be sufficient to prepay all of
the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if any) on the Refunded Bonds.
5.03. The Refunded Bonds maturing on February 1, 2011 and thereafter will be redeemed
and prepaid on June 1, 2010. The Refunded Bonds will be redeemed and prepaid in accordance
with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the forms of Notice of
Calls for Redemption attached hereto as Exhibit C which terms and conditions are hereby approved
and incorporated herein by reference. The Registrar for the Refunded Bonds is authorized and
directed to send a copy of the Notice of Redemption to each registered holder of the Refunded
Bonds.
5.04. When all Bonds and all interest thereon, have been discharged as provided in this
Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds
will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full
payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect. The City
may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before
that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any Bond should not be paid when due,
it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment
thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
Section 6. Authentication of Transcript.
6.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the
Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of
the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other
certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or
as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity
and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be
deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein.
6.02. The Mayor, City Manager and City Controller are authorized and directed to certify
that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official
Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as
of the date of the Official Statement.
Section 7. Tax Covenant.
7.01. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that
it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which
would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in
effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers, employees or agents to
take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 37
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently
existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Bonds.
7.02. (a) The City will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish
and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of the
Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for investments,
limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and the rebate of
excess investment earnings to the United States, if the Bonds (together with other obligations
reasonably expected to be issued in calendar year 2010) exceed the small-issuer exception amount of
$5,000,000.
(b) For purposes of qualifying for the small-issuer exception to the federal arbitrage
rebate requirements, the City finds, determines and declares that the aggregate face amount of all
tax-exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all subordinate entities
of the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued is not reasonably expected to
exceed $5,000,000, within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code.
7.03. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to cause or
permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private
activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code.
7.04. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the
meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and
representations:
(a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the
Code;
(b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations"
for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code;
(c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than any
private activity bonds that are not qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) which will be issued by the
City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during calendar year 2010 will not exceed
$30,000,000; and
(d) not more than $30,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar
year 2010 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
7.05. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements
which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 38
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Section 8. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
8.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or
printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon initial
issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York,
New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section, all of the
outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the
name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
8.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar
in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent
will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions
from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (Participants) or to any other
person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to
any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co.
or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any
Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration
books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of
redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered
owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the
Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in
whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the
holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and
interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such
Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the
registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to
fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if
any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a
registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, will
receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to
the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new
nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to such new nominee of DTC;
and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
8.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any
Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will
agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter with
respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 39
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
8.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in
the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC
will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the
City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered
owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue
providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and
discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will
authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply
to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
8.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with
respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's
Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter.
Section 9. Continuing Disclosure.
9.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City
hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the
Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure
of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of
default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be
necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to
cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
9.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate”
means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and
dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be
amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
Section 10. Defeasance.
10.01. Pledges, Covenants, and Other Rights to Cease. When all Bonds and all interest
thereon, have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted
by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and
credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will
remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by
depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If
any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the
Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such
deposit.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 40
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
_________________________, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 41
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached
and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on April
19, 2010 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy
of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $_________________ General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B of the City.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this
______ day of _______________, 2010.
City Clerk
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 42
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
STATE OF MINNESOTA TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER'S
CERTIFICATE AS TO
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND
REGISTRATION
I, the undersigned Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, on April 19, 2010, levying taxes for the payment of $____________
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010B, of said municipality dated May 7, 2010, has been filed in
my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such
tax has been levied as required by law.
WITNESS My hand and official seal this _____ day of _________________, 2010.
Taxpayer Services Division Manager
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Deputy
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 43
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSALS
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 44
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
EXHIBIT B
TAX LEVY SCHEDULE
YEAR * TAX LEVY
$
* Year tax levy collected.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 45
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
EXHIBIT C
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$3,265,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION STORM SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2001B
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on
JUNE 1, 2011
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds,
Series 2001B, dated May 1, 2001, having stated maturity dates of February 1 in the years 2011
through 2016, both inclusive, totaling $1,540,000 in principal amount, and with the following
CUSIP numbers:
Year of Maturity Amount CUSIP
2012* $470,000 791740 SA2
2014* 510,000 791740 SC8
2016* 560,000 791740 SE4
* Term Bonds
Bank of New York Company, Inc. (formerly known as Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company N.A.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin and National City Bank of Minneapolis)
Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate in
effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your social
security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This requirement is
fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other financial institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is
any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice or on any Bond.
It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 46
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Dated: April 19, 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ Nancy Stroth
City Clerk
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 47
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
EXHIBIT C
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$4,145,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2003A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on
JUNE 1, 2011
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003A, dated May
1, 2003, having stated maturity dates of February 1 in the years 2011 through 2014, both inclusive,
totaling $1,825,000 in principal amount, and with the following CUSIP numbers:
Year of Maturity Amount CUSIP
2011 $430,000 791740 SU8
2012 445,000 791740 SV6
2013 465,000 791740 SW4
2014 485,000 791740 SX2
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to June 1, 2011, on which date all
interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are
requested to present their bonds for payment at the office of the City Controller, in the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, on or before June 1, 2011.
Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate in
effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your social
security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This requirement is
fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other financial institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is
any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice or on any Bond.
It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 48
Subject: Award Bids for the 2010A and 2010B Bonds
Dated: April 19, 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ Nancy Stroth
City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of the plat named “Dental
Office Addition”.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed preliminary and final plat?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to purchase land from the adjacent property owned by Canadian Pacific
Railroad, and combine the newly acquired land with his property at 3345 Dakota Ave S. The plat is
a lot line adjustment only; a new lot will not be created. This request makes it possible for the
applicant, Dr. Jeffrey Miller, to be in conformance with the parking requirements established in the
zoning ordinance. The property owner’s parking lot is located on the adjacent railroad property
without the authorization of the railroad.
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a combined preliminary and final plat to shift 1,600 square feet of land from the
railroad parcel and combine it with the parcel to the north owned by the applicant. The request will
not result in the creation of a new lot.
The applicant would like to purchase the land from Canadian Pacific Railroad, owner of the railroad
parcel, because his parking lot is located on their property. He does not have a parking agreement,
lease or easement for the parking. Initially, the applicant wanted to purchase enough land so that he
would own all the land his parking lot utilizes. However, Canadian Pacific has a policy of owning
50 feet of land measured from the centerline of the tracks. When this policy is applied to this
property, 13 feet of excess property is left that could be sold. The 13 feet of land covers the drive
aisle only, therefore, the parking spaces will remain on Canadian Pacific’s property. Canadian
Pacific will enter into a lease agreement with the applicant to allow the parking spaces to stay.
It may be possible that Canadian Pacific would lease the entire parking lot area to the applicant
rather than sell some of the land; however, the applicant’s first priority is to purchase additional land,
in order to have some permanent parking. His parcel is small, only 3,450 square feet in area. The
additional 1,600 square feet would increase the parcel size to 5,050 square feet.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
ANALYSIS:
Land Use:
The current use of the applicant’s property is a dental office. Since the property is zoned R-2 Single
Family Residential, the dental office use is legally non-conforming. Adding land to a lot containing
a legally non-conforming use is permissible. The use may not expand by increasing building area or
the number of parking spaces; neither of which are planned. It is also unlikely that the building or
parking lot could expand, even if the plat is approved, due to the small lot size. The use meets the
minimum required parking for the office use, so additional parking spaces are not needed.
Lot Size:
The minimum lot size for the R-2 Single Family District is 7,200 square feet. The subject property
is 3,450 square feet, making it legally non-conforming. Adding the proposed 1,600 square feet will
bring the property up to 5,050 square feet, thereby bringing the property closer to conformance.
Railroad Right-of-Way:
As noted above, Canadian Pacific Railroad has a policy stating they want to own at least 50 feet of
land measured from centerline of the tracks. The property lines defining the railroad right-of-way
throughout the city are highly irregular. The exhibit below shows the property owned by the
railroad from Highway 7 north to Brunswick Ave, representing approximately 3,500 feet of railroad
track. The center of the track is represented by the black line running through the parcels. The
distance from center of track to property line varies considerably throughout the city, and in this
stretch it ranges from less than 10 feet to more than 100 feet.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
Freight Rail Study:
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has authorized its staff to prepare a Request
for Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to complete a “Kenilworth Freight Relocation Study.” The
study will look in detail at rerouting Twin Cities & Western (TC&W) rail traffic to the MNS-
Canadian Pacific (north-south tracts) line in St. Louis Park, which includes the subject property.
The study would include environmental documentation, preliminary engineering, community
impact assessment, and a public involvement process. Currently the RFP for consultants is being
drafted. The County expects to hire a consultant and begin the study this spring; the study is
expected to take 6-8 months to complete.
The sale would leave 50 feet of railroad land between the track centerline and the property line,
which meets Canadian Pacific’s needs and policies. The 50 feet also exceeds the distance found at
many areas along the tracks throughout this neighborhood and the city. Hennepin County Regional
Rail Authority Staff has reviewed this request and do not believe it will have any impact on future
rail operations.
Planning Commission:
A public hearing was conducted on March 17, 2010, and no comments were received. The
Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0) with a condition that the plat reflect any
easements that are required. A copy of the meeting minutes is attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Preliminary and Final Plat
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
DENTAL OFFICE ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Jeffrey H. Miller and Soo Line Railroad Company, a Minnesota Corporation doing
business as Canadian Pacific Railroad owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as
Dental Office Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of
said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 5, Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park North,
Hennepin County, Minnesota lying north and west of a line drawn diagonally from the
southwesterly corner of said Lot 7 to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 9, except all of Lot
9 and that part of Lot 8, lying north of a line running from a point in the east line of Lot 8,
8 feet south of the northeasterly corner of said Lot 8, to a point in the west line of said Lot 8,
lying 8 feet south of the Northwest corner of said Lot 8.
And
That part of Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8, Block 5, Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park
North, and that part of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 5, St. Louis Park North, and that part of the
vacated alley adjacent to said lots described as:
Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 Block 5 Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park
North; thence south to the Southeast corner of Lot 3 of said Block 5; thence west 3.11 feet;
thence southwesterly to a point on the west line of Lot 8, Block 5 St. Louis Park North and
passing through the point of intersection of the centerline of a vacated alley with the westerly
extension of the south line of Lot 6 Block 5 Maple Park Addition to St. Louis Park North;
thence North to the southwest corner of Lot 7 Block 5 Maple Park Addition to St. Louis
Park North; thence northeasterly to the northeast corner of Lot 9 last said block 5; thence
east to the southwest corner of Lot 3 Block 5 thence northeasterly to a point in the north line
thereof distant 35 feet east of the northwest corner thereof; thence west 30 feet; thence
northeasterly to a point on the north line of lot 1 distant 45 feet west of the northeast corner
thereof; thence east to the point of beginning, together with that part of the vacated alley
accruing thereto.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Dental Office Addition is hereby
approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances,
City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of
Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City
Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. Each lot shall have five foot drainage and utility easements along interior lot
lines insomuch as they do not interfere with existing buildings.
b. Each lot shall have a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the front lot
line.
c. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation
of any condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval
on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in
Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing
of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties
above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further
formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
Excerpts – Official Minutes
City of St. Louis Park
March 17, 2010
B. Preliminary and Final Plat – Dental Office
Location: 3345 Dakota Ave. S.
Applicant: Jeff Miller
Case No.: 10-08-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Morris asked why the applicant was replatting existing platted land. He said
the applicant could easily write a legal description for the existing platted land, sell it and it
would be a subdivision.
Mr. Morrison replied the subdivision ordinance allows an exempt subdivision with a lot line
adjustment for the creation of one additional lot, however that exception only applies when
there are less than three platted lots. He added that the freight rail study is also about to
begin, and the applicant wanted to present this application for public comment.
Commissioner Morris noted that lot one and two were not shown on the exhibit. He
believed they should be labeled as lots. He asked if there was a variance for drainage and
utility easement.
Mr. Morrison responded the exhibit was for preliminary plat. The final plat will require a
variance for those easements.
Commissioner Morris stated that final plat was referenced in the report.
Chair Person asked if the railroad was selling the property.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, the railroad was selling the property.
Commissioner Kramer asked why the buyer and seller were doing the transaction.
Jeffrey Miller, applicant, explained he had owned the office for over 20 years but did not
own the parking lot. He didn’t have a formal agreement with the railroad and felt if he ever
wanted to sell the office property he need to purchase or lease the railroad property.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of “Dental Office Division”
Commissioner Morris stated he was not opposed to the request, but thought it should be
made conditional to staff making necessary corrections for the plat filing. If necessary, the
applicant needs to go through the variance process.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final
Plat named Dental Office Addition, subject to staff correction of any variances that may be
required.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of "Dentall Office Division"Page 8
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Preliminary and Final Plat of "Dentall Office Division"Page 9
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(WECS).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Wind
Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), and set the second reading for May 3, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the city adopt ordinances to regulate alternative wind energy sources?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Staff is proposing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Wind Energy Conversions
Systems (WECS). The purpose of the amendments is to define WECS, identify the manner in
which they are permitted, where they are permitted and to establish performance and design
standards.
BACKGROUND:
On March 23, 2009, the City Council received a report from staff outlining current regulations as
they pertain to wind turbines. The conclusion was that existing regulations do not specifically
address WECS, and that they may not currently be allowed under the zoning ordinance. It was
determined that it would be best to be proactive and take a closer look at the issue of wind
generators and city regulations.
WECS Report:
Since the March 23rd meeting, staff attended two separate seminars on WECS, communicated with
wind energy experts from the State of Minnesota Department of Energy Security, and hired Brian
Ross, Principal of CR Planning Inc. to provide a framework for WECS regulations. CR Planning
firm specializes in energy planning, and has assisted numerous cities, counties and some states
including Minnesota in formulating energy policies and regulations. Mr. Ross reported on the
feasibility of WECS in St. Louis Park, taking into consideration research and resources available,
current and anticipated WECS technology and general development patterns, topography and
ground cover in St. Louis Park.
The WECS report was presented to the Planning Commission on January 6, 2010 and the Council
on January 25, 2010. The City Council asked staff to continue with the creation of an ordinance in
alignment with the direction being taken by staff. Attached is a copy of the report. Specific
highlights include:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems
▪ Two reasons for having regulations on wind energy installations are:
o To promote or encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency; and
o To address actual or perceived nuisances associated with wind energy installations.
▪ Wind energy installations are not the most cost effective means to reduce energy bills,
however they can be a step toward sustainability and energy self sufficiency.
▪ The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is an area of poor wind resources. The urban
landscape creates a low-speed and turbulent wind resource that is difficult to capture
with existing technology.
▪ Wind generators can be categorized into three broad types, Utility-scale generators, Small
wind generators (potentially powering a single site); and, Micro wind systems (emerging
technology – very low power generators)
▪ St. Louis Park does not have any large scale wind opportunities. Some property owners
may be interested in pursuing small or micro scale generators.
▪ While micro wind systems may be the most applicable type for St. Louis Park, most of
our residential areas are not appropriate for these systems because of:
o Visual impacts - the height needed is at least 30 feet above obstructions,
o Tower fall zone is needed at 100% or more of height,
o Noise is generated from WECS and can be an issue.
WECS Draft Ordinance:
In addition to studying the feasibility of wind energy in St. Louis Park, Mr. Ross assisted staff in
preparing a draft ordinance. This draft is written based on the study findings that wind is not
considered to be a viable energy alternative for most of the city. Even WECS installed in areas that
have good topography, clear zones and height are still not expected to be cost effective due to the
cost of the system and low consistent wind speeds. Therefore the intent of the draft ordinance is to
allow WECS only in the large open areas typically found in commercial and industrial areas where
they are most effective. In conjunction with the ordinance, the city will continue to encourage home
owners to pursue more efficient means of saving energy and money by utilizing existing programs to
replace windows, siding, roofs, insulation and appliances.
In summary, the draft ordinance proposes the following:
1. WECS would be allowed in the commercial, office and industrial districts only.
2. 1-1.5 acre minimum lot sizes would be required.
3. Minimum setbacks from property lines would be 110% of the WECS height.
4. Roof-mounted WECS would not be allowed.
5. Towers would be required to be monopole design only, without guyed wires.
6. WECS would be required to meet noise limits defined in existing city code.
7. Several other design and general requirements.
8. The following table (36-369A) is part of the amendment, and identifies the zoning in which
WECS are permitted, the maximum height and number allowed per lot, and the minimum
lot size.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Table 36-369A
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Height Limit (feet)*
District
Permitted
up to
Conditional
Use up to
Max. # of
WECS per
lot*
Minimum
Lot Size
C-2 110 170 2 1.5
O 110 170 2 1.5
I-P 110 199 4 1.5
I-G 110 199 4 1.5
* The height and number of systems per lot is dependent on
meeting the setback requirements.
The draft ordinance is attached for your review.
Planning Commission:
A public hearing was conducted on March 17, 2010. No comments were received at the hearing.
The Commission recommended approval (7-0) with a comment that the proposed ordinance
includes a statement that the WECS ordinance may be amended from time to time as technology
improves and wind energy becomes more feasible and the potential for public nuisances diminish. A
copy of the meeting minutes is attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Research on wind turbine towers is consistent with the Council’s Vision Strategic Direction, “St.
Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.”
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
WECS Report
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4 and 36-369
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-9-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4 and 36-369 are hereby amended
as follows. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
Wind energy conversion system (WECS) means all necessary devices that together convert wind
energy into electricity, including the rotor, nacelle, generator, tower, electrical components, foundation,
transformer, and electrical cabling from the tower to building or substation(s) and their support facilities.
Wind energy conversion system, building mounted means a wind energy conversion system that is
attached to a building for structural support.
Wind energy conversion system, large means a wind energy conversion system with a rated capacity of
greater than 100 kW.
Wind energy conversion system tower means a support structure to which the nacelle and rotor are
attached.
Wind energy conversion system height means the distance measured from the lowest exterior grade at
the base of the WECS to the highest point of any component of a WECS.
***
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 4
Sec. 36-369. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS).
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum requirements for the size,
placement and maintenance of wind energy systems by adoption of regulations governing all wind energy
systems in the city.
(b) Findings. The City finds that:
(1) While there is limited opportunity for wind power generation in St. Louis Park, the City
may have some sites that have the right characteristics of topography, land cover, and lack of
turbulence for the land owner to consider wind energy as an option for sustainability. These
sites tend to be large open areas typical of commercial, industrial or park properties.
(2) Wind energy systems have the potential for nuisance and safety considerations including
structural reliability, visual impacts, bird and bat kills, noise, shadow flicker, and ice throw.
Therefore, careful consideration must be given when siting a wind energy conversion system.
(3) Review of regulations may be appropriate as the WECS technology improves and changes
resulting in alternative energy systems that are viable for St. Louis Park and greatly diminish
the potential for being a nuisance to adjacent properties or the community.
(c) Standards by Zoning District. Table 36-369A lists in which zoning districts WECS are allowed.
The table also identifies, by zoning district, the maximum allowed height, the maximum number of WECS
allowed per lot and the minimum required lot size.
Table 36-369A
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM STANDARDS
Height Limit (feet)*
District
Permitted
, up to
Conditional
Use, up to
Max. # of
WECS per lot* Minimum Lot Size
C-2 110 170 2 1.5
O 110 170 2 1.5
I-P 110 199 4 1.5
I-G 110 199 4 1.5
* The height and number of systems per lot is dependent on meeting the
setback requirements.
(d) Setbacks. WECS shall meet the following setback requirements:
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 5
(1) At least 110% of the WECS height from all property lines.
(2) At least 100% of the WECS height from other WECS.
(3) At least 20 feet from principal buildings.
(4) The furthest reach of the blade must be at least 30 feet from the ground and any other
obstruction.
(e) Design requirements. All WECS shall meet the following design requirement:
(1) Monopole tower. All towers shall be of a free standing monopole type that does not utilize
guyed wires or any other means to support the tower.
(2) Roof mounting. Roof mounted WECS are prohibited.
(3) Minimize visual impact. WECS design and location shall minimize visual impact.
(4) Color and finish. All WECS shall be white, grey or another non-obtrusive color. Blades may
be black in order to facilitate deicing. Finishes shall be matt or non-reflective.
(5) Tower lighting. WECS shall not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the
FAA or other federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
(6) Signs and displays. The use of any portion of a WECS for displaying flags and signs, other
than warning or equipment information signs, is prohibited.
(7) Associated equipment. Ground equipment associated with a WECS shall be housed in a
structure. Structures housing equipment shall meet the architectural design standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. Control wiring and power-lines shall be wireless or underground.
(8) Braking system required. All WECS shall have an automatic braking, governing or
feathering system to prevent uncontrolled rotation, overspeeding and excessive pressure on
the tower structure, rotor blades and turbine components.
(9) Design height. The applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed height of the WECS
does not exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 6
(10) Interconnection agreement. The applicant shall provide a copy of the utility notification
requirements for interconnection, unless the applicant intends, and so states on the
application, that the system will not be connected to the electricity grid.
(11) Technology standards. WECS must meet the minimum standards of a WECS certification
program recognized by the American Wind Energy Association, such as AWEA’s Small
Wind Turbine Performance and Safety Standard, the Emerging Technologies program of the
California Energy Commission, or other 3rd party standards acceptable to the City.
(f) Permits required. In addition to the information and permits required elsewhere in this Code,
applications for a WECS shall include the following information unless it is determined by the Zoning
Administrator that certain information is not required based upon the nature of the proposed WECS:
(1) A dimensioned drawing that illustrates the total WECS height, including the footings and
tower width.
(2) A site plan illustrating that the proposed WECS complies with all setbacks and other
requirements affecting where a WECS can be located.
(3) A report that describes decibels at varying wind speeds for a set distance from the turbine, up
to the cut-out wind speed.
(4) Additional information requested by the Zoning Administrator necessary to evaluate the
request.
(g) Noise. Audible sound due to wind energy system operations shall comply with the standards
governing noise contained in the City of St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances.
(h) Abandonment and decommissioning. If the WES remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a
continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance.
The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained.
Removal includes the entire structure including foundations to below natural grade and transmission
equipment.
***
Secs. 36-369370--36-400. Reserved.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-9-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 7
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing March 17, 2010
First Reading April 19, 2010
Second Reading May 3, 2010
Date of Publication May 13, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect May 28, 2010
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 8
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -1- City of Saint Louis Park
Local Government Goals for Renewable Energy Regulation
Communities typically enact wind energy development regulations in order to meet two distinct
goals:
1. In order to promote or encourage renewable energy in their community;
2. In order to address the actual and perceived nuisances associated with wind energy
installations.
These two goals are not mutually exclusive; most
communities consider both goals as they
construct development regulations to address
wind energy installations. The most important
consideration as the community evaluates wind
energy ordinance provisions is to keep these two
goals in mind as each aspect of regulation is
debated. While the two goals are not mutually
exclusive, some regulatory provisions will serve
one of these goals at the expense of the other.
The St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan has a
number of goals that demonstrate the need to
consider both of the two general goals noted
above. The Comprehensive Plan calls both for
improving the sustainability of the City and for
protecting neighborhood character. Many
communities are struggling with the question of
whether wind energy is a reasonable use in
residential areas or if it should be considered
primarily as a non-residential use.
Why invest in wind energy?
Investments in wind energy systems are made for a variety of reasons. Every investment in wind
energy, furthermore, involves multiple levels of stakeholders, including adjacent property
owners, the electric utility, and the local government. Homeowners, businesses, utilities, and
local governments have distinct interests in wind energy, as noted below.
Homeowners are interested in wind energy to reduce their carbon footprint, become more self-
sufficient or independent, save money on the utility bill, and because of an interest in the
technology.
Businesses are interested in wind energy for the ‘green’ symbolism of renewable energy and
meeting climate protection or sustainability commitments. Businesses also may see wind energy
installations as a way to reduce energy costs or limit risk of energy price volatility through
diversifying their energy supply.
Balancing Goals
A typical element of wind energy regulation is
regulating tower height. Restricting tower
heights serves the goal of limiting visual
nuisances and addressing safety considerations,
serving goal #2. Restricting tower height also
has the effect of limiting renewable energy
production (goal #1). Electric production from a
wind turbine is greatly affected by tower height;
limiting tower heights has a dramatic diminishing
effect on the production of renewable energy.
Similarly, setting the tower height limit to 120
feet will allow most small wind turbines to
maximize the local wind energy, best serving
goal #1. In urban areas, however, a 120 foot
tower comes with visual impacts and safety risks.
In the event of a tower collapse, albeit a rare
event, a 120-foot tower in an urban area poses
safety risks to more than one neighbor.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 9
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -2- City of Saint Louis Park
Utilities have several interests in wind energy development. For instance, utilities have a
statutory interest in renewable energy in the form of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Most of
the RPS capacity, however, will be met via contracts with large-scale wind developers and some
of their own investment in wind farms. Small scale wind is unlikely to play significantly in the
utility meeting its statutory obligations. In addition to meeting their RPS goals, utilities have an
interest in small wind energy projects because these projects fall under Minnesota’s “net
metering” law (the utility has to buy the power at the same rate as the home or business buys
from the utility), and distributed wind generation affects how energy is consumed, generated, and
distributed on the utility grid.
Local governments have several point of interest in renewable energy. Cities such as St. Louis
Park have made commitments to sustainability or climate protection and might see renewable
energy as being in the portfolio of solutions to meeting those commitments. Renewable energy
is also a local resource that displaces an ‘imported’ resource, meaning that renewable energy has
economic development benefits. Finally, renewable energy is a form of “distributed generation”,
which has proven to improve power quality and reliability on the local electric grid, a critical
component of local infrastructure that runs along City rights-of-way.
Balancing Sustainability Choices
Local governments need to consider the interaction of these various interests in evaluating local
renewable energy policy or regulation. In making informed choices about sustainability, the City
must also consider the multiple paths to sustainability. For instance, while wind energy
installations will reduce a homeowner’s or business’s energy bill, wind energy is not the most
cost effective means to achieve that particular goal. Energy efficiency is virtually always a better
investment than renewable energy systems from the standpoint of cost savings or total effect on
greenhouse gas reductions.
The cost-effectiveness perspective is not, however, always the primary interest in choosing a
sustainability strategy – energy efficiency rarely provides a visible symbol of sustainability as
does a renewable energy system. Renewable energy also offers the promise of self-sufficiency
(you need some kind of energy production to build a zero-energy building or to get to a zero net
carbon footprint). Within renewable energy choices, solar energy is sometimes the better
sustainability choice than wind energy. Solar is not as cost-effective as wind energy, except in
urban areas where the wind resource is sporadic and the nuisances of wind energy more limiting.
Both wind and solar energy are complementary to an energy efficiency strategy for moving
toward a zero-energy or zero-carbon building.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 10
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -3- City of Saint Louis Park
Wind Energy Resources and Technology
Wind Resources in Minnesota, the Metropolitan Area and St. Louis Park.
Minnesota has a tremendous wind energy potential. The wind energy resource is, however, not
distributed evenly across the State; some areas have an excellent wind resource, while other
areas have a poor wind resource. A statewide representation of wind resources is shown in
Figure 1.
The factors that contribute to a good wind resource include:
¾ Topography: high ground has more wind resource than low ground. The Buffalo Ridge in
southwest Minnesota is higher than surrounding areas for miles, and thus provides a large area
of good wind resource.
The Minnesota River
Valley similarly stands
out as a lower resource
area than surrounding
land.
¾ Land Cover: Land
cover such as trees and
buildings reduce wind
resources, while land
cover such as crops and
prairie have little
effect. Prairies and
lakes show up as good
areas for wind energy,
forested areas are poor
(at least at the 30 meter
height).
¾ Obstructions Creating
Turbulence: A single
object sticking up will
create turbulence in the
wind. Buildings, trees,
even wind turbines
themselves will create
turbulence for
surrounding areas.
Turbulence will
dramatically reduce the
effectiveness of wind
energy conversion
systems.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 11
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -4- City of Saint Louis Park
Given these characteristics, one can understand why the metropolitan region appears to be an
area of poor wind resources. Figure 2 shows a blowup of the same map for the metropolitan
region. As can be noted, there are very few obvious opportunities to capture high-quality wind
energy. The urban landscape creates a low-speed turbulent wind resource that is difficult to
capture with existing technology.
When considering the wind resource maps, keep in mind that the maps present data at a 500-
meter resolution. This resolution accurately depicts the regional wind resource differences, but
does not provide resolution sufficient to identify specific sites that are good or bad for wind
energy. There are small sites that are quite good for wind energy in the white (poor resource)
areas, and poor sites in the high value areas (orange and brown) along Buffalo Ridge. Also, the
maps show wind resources at 30 meters (about 100 feet). We chose to present the 30 meter data
because that is the most relevant information for the type of wind turbine likely to be seen in St.
Louis Park (see the wind technology summary).
Wind Energy Conclusions
Based on these data, St. Louis Park certainly does not have any large scale wind energy
opportunities. St. Louis Park may, however, have some small sites that have the right
characteristics of topography, land cover, and lack of turbulence for the land owner to consider
wind energy as an option for sustainability. Even the best sites, however, are likely to be
marginal from the standpoint of cost effectiveness or productive energy output per dollar of
capital. Identifying good sites is likely to occur on an ad hoc basis, or on guesswork by the
SLP
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 12
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -5- City of Saint Louis Park
landowner. Some communities have evaluated wind resources at a more detailed community
level in order to assess where to put, for instance, a wind energy overlay district. The cost of
such a study (ranging from $3,000 to $7,000) must be balanced against the likelihood of
identifying meaningful wind resources. As noted later, if the City wishes to consider renewable
energy production as a regulatory threshold, it can require performance estimates in the
application for a land use or building permit.
Current Technology and Technology Trends
Wind energy technology has changed considerably over the last 20 years, and continues to
evolve. For the purposes of this background report, we have separated the technology into three
categories that help guide renewable energy regulation in St. Louis Park;
1) Utility-scale wind turbines
2) Small wind turbines
3) Micro- and alternative-design turbines
1) Utility-scale Wind Turbines. Utility-scale turbines are the largest type of turbine, typically
seen in rural areas as part of wind farms, as seen in western Minnesota and northern Iowa, but
occasionally on an individual basis, such as the Carleton Collage and Saint Olaf College turbines
on the edge of Northfield.
Size: These turbines are 300-600 feet in height and have a rated capacity measured in the
megawatt (MW) range.
Purpose: Utility-scale turbines are almost always designed to generate electricity for sale on
the electric grid, and can produce electricity that is cost competitive with more traditional
fuels.
Evolution of technology: As the industry evolves, these turbines are getting bigger and
bigger; 15 years ago a large turbine had less than one MW of generating capacity, turbines
now are multiple MWs in capacity and getting larger.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: The only cities that need to address such large turbines in
their development ordinances are cities outside metropolitan areas. The turbines need to be
clearly separated from homes and infrastructure by hundreds of feet and are placed only
where the wind resource is optimal. St. Louis Park does not have sites suitable for such a
large scale turbines.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 13
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -6- City of Saint Louis Park
2) Small Wind Turbines. Small wind turbines include most all
non-utility scale turbines and have a wide range of heights and
capacity. They are substantially smaller than utility scale
turbines – there is a large gap in size and capacity between
utility-scale and small wind turbines.
Size: Small wind turbines usually have towers between 60
and 120 feet, although some will approach 200 at the top
end of the scale. Capacity is measured in kilowatts (KW)
rather than the MW range of the utility-scale turbines, but
rarely is more than 100 KW.
Purpose: Small wind turbines are usually deployed as
single units rather than as part of a wind farm, and
frequently sized to first meet on-site electric demand rather
than to generate electricity for sale on the grid. These
systems are not cost competitive as utility power sources,
but can be (with a good wind resource) cost competitive
from a retail perspective. Small wind is probably the most
cost effective on-site renewable energy technology.
Evolution of technology: While small wind technology is
evolving, the capacity and height are largely unchanged
over the last ten years. Changes have been in improved
efficiency, reduced noise, and increased reliability.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: Many cities need to address small wind in their development
ordinances. The cost of small wind turbines is within the reach of homeowners and small
businesses. As the interest in renewable energy grows, more individuals wish to put up small
wind turbines in order to make a relatively economic investment in renewable energy. Issues
will include visual impacts, safety considerations,
and concerns about noise, shadow flicker, and
property value impacts.
3) Micro systems and Alternative Technologies.
Micro systems and alternative technologies include
very small traditional turbines, and a variety of
vertical axis and building-mounted wind energy
systems. These systems are far less common than
traditional small wind and do not have the years of
demonstrated success of either small wind or utility
scale wind.
Size: Micro systems and alternative systems are
usually less than 80 feet tall and frequently are
advertised to be mounted in urban areas even on
buildings. The capacity is usually less than 10KW
and may even be measured in watts (less than one
kilowatt).
Purpose: Micro systems and alternative
technologies are intended to provide power for
The Swift wind turbine from Cascade
Engineering (Credit: Cascade Engineering)
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 14
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -7- City of Saint Louis Park
primarily on-site use in situations where traditional small wind cannot be deployed (such as
low-speed wind, turbulent wind, and in urban settings). The systems are intended to compete
with other forms of on-site energy production (solar energy, wood energy, biomass), and
offer a renewable alternative to retail electric prices.
Evolution of technology: Micro systems and alternative designs are rapidly changing. A
number of new companies are marketing new products for the specific purpose of tapping
into the urban and suburban market for wind energy. Nearly all these products, however, are
largely unproven as a meaningful source of renewable energy. Some recent real world tests
of these technologies have demonstrated a much lower than advertised performance. New
technologies are being rolled out but no technology has yet proven to be able to capture
urban or low-speed wind.
Applicability to St. Louis Park: Many cities need to address micro turbines and small wind
in their development ordinances. The target market for these systems is the homeowner and
small businesses, and the cost is generally lower than traditional small wind systems. Issues
to address include both nuisance considerations as noted for small wind systems and the
viability of the systems to actually generate renewable energy.
Technology Conclusions
St. Louis Park is most likely to see requests to install the latter two categories of wind energy
technologies; small wind, and micro/alternative technologies. St. Louis Park has a variety of lot
sizes and land uses, some of which could be appropriate for wind energy systems. Most
residential areas, however, have lot sizes and residential density that is not appropriate even for
small wind, leaving just the micro- and alternative systems as a potential option for these areas.
As noted above, the primary question then becomes whether such systems are even viable as
renewable energy systems in St. Louis Park’s low energy wind regime.
Some consideration may also need to be given to systems that exceed the small wind size
thresholds noted above that could conceivably be used on a few industrial or large commercial
sites. For instance, the wind turbine at the Great River Energy facility in Maple Grove, adjacent
to the large commercial shopping are, does not reach the threshold of a utility-scale system but is
bigger than what is considered a small wind system. Such a possibility can be addressed via a
conditional use permit process to assess the particular visual and safety impacts on the larger site.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 15
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -8- City of Saint Louis Park
Regulatory Issues
Regulation associated with wind energy takes two forms, which mirror the two regulatory goals
noted at the beginning of this background report:
1. Regulation to encourage renewable energy
2. Regulation to address nuisances and land use conflicts
Nuisance Regulation
Wind energy systems can create a number of real or perceived nuisances or safety considerations
that are addressed in wind regulatory ordinances, including the following:
¾ Tower fall zone
¾ Visual impacts
¾ Bird and bat kills
¾ Noise performance standards
¾ Shadow flicker
¾ Harm to habitat
¾ Construction impacts
¾ Electro-magnetic interference
¾ Ice throw
¾ Impacts to property value
Most of these considerations, including construction impacts, electro-magnetic interference, bird
and bat kills, shadow flicker, and harm to habitat, are much more associated with utility scale
turbines and wind farms (multiple turbines operated to generate power for the wholesale market).
St. Louis Park does not need to consider wind farms or utility scale turbines, and thus can likely
disregard these considerations except as a perceived, rather than real, risk. Individual instances
may occur, such as a few birds killed by turbines, but the impact on bird populations from small
wind systems is negligible. Other considerations, particularly ice throw and related risks such as
blades breaking off and flying hundreds of feet, are exclusively perceived risks with little
evidence to support actual risk. Finally, the assertion that wind energy negatively affects
property values is frequently raised as a risk, but for which there is little evidence. Property
value impacts are not supported by evidence in market studies, with the exception of some
anecdotal evidence where utility-scale wind farms are located near residential properties or
where safety setbacks were ignored in areas of urban density.
Therefore, the primary regulatory issues for the type of wind development likely to be seen in St.
Louis Park include the following:
Tower fall zone – While extremely rare, towers of all types have been blown down or damaged
in severe weather. Small wind towers are no exception, and most communities address this issue
in development regulation.
Noise – Wind turbines do create noise, and early versions of small wind turbines created enough
noise to exceed nuisance thresholds. Most newer small turbines stay below nuisance noise
thresholds (below 50 decibels), but noise is still considered a nuisance risk in most communities
that regulate wind energy.
Visual impacts – Visual impacts are the most qualitative nuisance risk, but also the most
common. In many cases, opposition to wind turbines is rooted almost entirely in the anticipated
visual impact the tower has from nearby homes; other issues may be raised, but the visual impact
is the lynchpin to most concerns. Visual impacts are also extremely difficult to mitigate except
by reducing tower heights, which then reduces the renewable energy value of the installation.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 16
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -9- City of Saint Louis Park
Incentives in Regulation
Identifying regulatory incentives helps meet the first goal for renewable energy development
regulation (promoting or encouraging renewable energy in the community). Many cities,
including St. Louis Park, have set high-priority goals to improve sustainability, reduce climate-
changing emissions, or foster the use of local resources. Renewable energy development can
help a community meet all these goals, and is frequently described as an important
implementation element for meeting sustainability or climate protection goals. Regulatory
initiatives take two forms in land use and development regulation:
A. Removing regulatory barriers to renewable energy development, and
B. Creating incentives within development regulation.
A. Removing regulatory barriers is primarily a process of: 1) identifying where the city’s
traditional tools of land use regulation, such as setback requirements, dimensional standards,
height requirements, and design standards, conflict with the goal of encouraging renewable
energy, and; 2: identifying how regulations can be changed to better accommodate renewable
energy without subverting the original intent of the land use regulation.
Some forms of renewable energy, such as solar power, are fairly compatible with the urban
form of development typically found in St. Louis Park. Solar power does not, in most cases,
need to be higher than the primary structure, it makes no noise, and presents virtually no safety
risk to surrounding properties. The primary nuisance is one of aesthetics or conflicts with
design standards, and the primary resource concern is addressing solar access across property
lines. Mitigating tools are readily available for most of these issues.
Removing barriers to wind energy systems, however, presents a more difficult set of choices
for St. Louis Park. In order to be most effective, wind turbines must be where the wind is best;
50 feet above nearby structures or trees. In light of this need, removing regulatory barriers
requires that the City consider the following changes:
¾ Changing in height limitations to allow substantially higher structures (towers) in order to
allow capture of the wind resource.
¾ Finding setback compromises that address the tower fall zone, using either a setback standard
or a lot size limitation.
¾ Considering impacts on community character in regard to visual impact by identifying areas
where towers have significant impact on character or viewshed, and those areas where visual
impacts are less significant.
B. Creating incentives for renewable energy is a relatively new consideration for local
governments. Fortunately, local governments have significant experience with local incentives
for other goals, and many of those incentives can be adapted to encouraging renewable energy.
Appropriate incentives for wind energy, assuming wind energy can meet community standards
for safety, aesthetics, and performance, may include the following:
¾ Regulatory flexibility in new construction
¾ An option for meeting sustainability requirements when the City is a financial partner in a
development
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 17
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -10- City of Saint Louis Park
¾ An option with PUDs
¾ A preference within ‘green’ or high performance building standards, such as LEED.
Types of Wind Energy Regulations
A discussion of specific regulatory tools
and how communities sometimes use
these tools follows. Specific examples
of how these concepts have been applied
can be found in the model ordinance
referenced in the text box.
Tower Height – Allowing wind turbines
on a lot, but limiting tower height to
anything less than 80 feet in St. Louis
Park is likely to dramatically limit
energy productivity. The relationship
between tower height and energy
production is not linear, but geometric.
In urban areas, for instance, a 50%
increase in tower height, from 40-feet to
60-feet, may only result in a marginal
improvement in production. A 50%
increase, from 60-feet to 90-feet,
however, may dramatically improve
productive value.
From the standpoint of sustainability,
limiting tower height is a poor way to regulate wind turbines. Sustainability goals are not served
by allowing investment in renewable energy, then severely constricting the renewable energy
output.
Lot Size – Limiting installations of wind energy to lots of an acre or more can address several
nuisance issues. An acre or more ensures that installations might be able to meet safety setback
requirements, mitigates for noise considerations beyond the lot line, and mitigates some of the
visual impact. Community sustainability goals may be compromised if large lots are in poor
wind locations, meaning that wind energy installations can only happen through redevelopment
at lower density (which may conflict with other sustainability goals).
Setbacks – Setbacks are a necessary element of regulating wind energy, except perhaps for
building-mounted systems. Setbacks generally need to be at least the height of the tower from
either a lot line or a residence (other than the residence on site). Some communities will require
a larger setback - 110% or 125% of tower height. Some communities have extended the setback
even farther, asking that turbines be 200% of tower height, although there is little quantifiable
justification for a 200% setback for small wind installations.
Elements of a Wind Energy Conversion System
(WECS) Ordinance
Counties, cities, and townships are enabled to regulate land
use under Minnesota Statutes 394 and 462 for the purpose
of: “promoting the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community.” How wind energy land use
issues affect each type of community will significantly
change the structure and focus of the WECS ordinance.
Some common elements to consider in all communities are
noted below.
A. Distinguish between Types of Wind Energy
Applications
B. Define Necessary Permits
C. Establish Setbacks
D. Establish Safety Standards
E. Establish Design Standards
F. Establish Other Applicable Standards
G. Minimize Infrastructure Impacts
Source: From Policy to Reality: Revised Model Ordinances for
Sustainable Development, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency/CR Planning, Inc., 2009
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 18
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -11- City of Saint Louis Park
District limitations – Wind energy can be
restricted, or given preference, by zoning
district or overlay district. Communities
may, for instance, prohibit wind turbines
in higher density residential districts, but
make wind turbines a permitted use in
industrial and large commercial districts.
The overlay concept can be used to restrict
wind systems, such as in a scenic view
area. Overlays are also used to encourage
wind, such as a wind overlay district
where wind resources are known to be
valuable and wind turbines are given
precedence over visual considerations.
Performance standard – Performance
standards can address many real or
perceived nuisances associated with wind
turbines. Noise standards, measured at the
property line, protect both adjoining
landowners from excessive noise and the
wind turbine owner from unwarranted
complaints. Other standards that
communities sometimes set include:
¾ lighting,
¾ protection of natural resource areas,
¾ electromagnetic interference,
¾ maintenance
Design standards – In order to mitigate specific visual
or safety considerations, some communities will
regulate the tower’s appearance or design. Regulated
items include:
¾ tower type (monopole, guyed, frame)
¾ tower finish (non-obtrusive color)
¾ prohibiting signage on tower
¾ attractive nuisance – no unsecured ladders on
towers or fencing around ladders
¾ design and location of ancillary structures and
facilities (power lines, battery storage, etc).
Productivity standards – The performance of the wind turbine, in terms of how productive the
turbine is at producing electricity, would not normally be a regulatory issue. Productivity
generally affects only the owner. Given, however, that the City is considered two regulatory
goals (regulating nuisances and improving sustainability) productivity becomes an important
Wisconsin Small Wind Model Ordinance
00.05 Standards.
A small wind energy system shall be a permitted use in
all zoning districts subject to the following requirements:
(1) Setbacks. A wind tower for a small wind system
shall be set back a distance equal to its total height
from:
(a) any public road right of way, unless written
permission is granted by the governmental entity
with jurisdiction over the road;
(b) any overhead utility lines, unless written
permission is granted by the affected utility;
(c) all property lines, unless written permission is
granted from the affected land owner or neighbor.
(2) Access.
(a) All ground mounted electrical and control
equipment shall be labeled or secured to prevent
unauthorized access.
(b) The tower shall be designed and installed so as to
not provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible
to the public for a minimum height of 8 feet above
the ground.
Source: Small Wind Energy System Ordinance, Focus on Energy
Noise Performance Standard
D. Sound Pressure Level: On-site Use
wind energy systems shall not exceed
55 dB(A) at the property line closest to
the wind energy system. This sound
pressure level may be exceeded during
short term events such as utility
outages and/or severe wind storms. If
the ambient sound pressure level
exceeds 55 dB(A), the standard shall
be ambient dB(A) plus 5 dB(A).
Source: Sample Zoning Amendments
for Wind Energy Systems, Michigan
State University Extension, 2008
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 19
Wind Energy Background Report
Prepared by CR Planning, Inc. -12- City of Saint Louis Park
consideration. Sustainability is not improved by a wind turbine that does not produce any
electricity, or the produces at rate that the owner would have been better off putting in a solar
system, efficiency measure, or other sustainability investment. The productivity of micro
turbines, building mounted systems, and other alternative technologies are particularly prone to
dramatic underperformance.
If the City is considering incentives to encourage wind energy, productivity is very important.
The City is a partner in the installation and should get a reasonable ‘return’ on its partnership.
Installers should provide an estimate of annual production, and production should be monitored
to ensure that claimed benefits occur.
Regulatory Conclusions
St. Louis Park should consider the following regulatory issues:
¾ Wind locations. Where in St. Louis Park might full height (80 - 120 feet) towers for small
wind be located without having significant impact on surrounding land uses? Do such
locations exist, and if so should wind energy systems be given preference over visual impacts
on neighbors?
¾ Land use limitations. What limitations should be placed on wind energy as a land use outside
areas that can accommodate full size towers? A number of tools can be used to limit wind
energy installations, including designating wind systems as only allowed in specific districts,
limiting installations by lot size of the primary use, setback requirements, and limiting height.
¾ Performance standards. What performance standards should the City consider for small and
micro-wind systems? Performance standards can be used to both mitigate nuisances and
protect wind turbine owners by setting a clear standard against which they can be measured.
¾ Productivity. Should the City consider, in developing ordinances, the productivity of the
system? In other words, should the City discourage wind turbines that have questionable
productivity, including building-mounted micro-turbines or wind turbines on short (35- 60
foot) towers?
¾ Incentives. Is the City considering incentives or other encouragement for renewable energy
installations? If so, the City should consider performance standards that ensure that the City is
getting benefit for the incentive; is the renewable energy installation providing real renewable
energy benefit?
¾ Large turbines. What standards should be in place to evaluate a conditional use application
for a larger wind turbine on a large commercial or industrial site?
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 20
Excerpts – Official Planning Commission Minutes
City of St. Louis Park
March 17, 2010
C. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-09-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer said he viewed WECS technology as being in its infancy
and he asked why the proposed ordinance language doesn’t include rooftop units.
He suggested it would be proactive to include them in the ordinance language.
Mr. Morrison asked the consultant, Brian Ross, to respond.
Brian Ross, CR Planning, replied that rooftop systems were in their infancy
regarding technological performance. Some have been marketed, but currently
there aren’t any systems that have much efficacy as wind energy. There are
structural problems and they will create vibration and possible structural damage
to the building. There are no standards yet.
Mr. Ross went on to say that an ordinance like this is contemplated for a variety
of different reasons, which include safety and balancing between aesthetics and
what someone might want to do to their property. What most communities have
determined is if they want to put up something that may have a visual impact on
neighbors, it should perform a reasonable function and purpose that is a benefit to
the community. He said he was unaware of a system that was a reasonable wind
system in the urban speeds they get on buildings. It is difficult to engineer for the
low speed winds in urban areas that don’t have much energy. The building and
other structures dampen the average wind speed around a building. To get
reasonable productivity, they need enough wind power to produce energy. Mr.
Ross said he wasn’t saying that someday they won’t be able to capture energy, but
the current systems pose more risk and aesthetic issues. The City of Minneapolis
does allow roof mounted WECS which include restrictions and engineering
requirements.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, noted the idea that the
technology was in its infancy was part of the discussion and they expected to
revisit the ordinance as the technology changed. The ordinance can be amended
when a system would make sense.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 21
Mr. Morrison added the approach they were taking was encouraged by most wind
advocates. Staff wanted the WECS to be effective and appropriate for the
community.
Commissioner Carper asked about Item (e)(4), WECS design requirements/color
and finish, which states grey and white would be allowed. He asked if it should
indicate solid grey and white would be allowed.
Mr. Morrison replied that could be added.
Commissioner Carper asked if there has been consideration about whether towers
would be used as cell phone relay towers or for radio transmission.
Mr. Morrison said it would need to be determined if the engineering of the tower
could withstand the weight. The setback and performance standards of WECS are
the same as for communication towers.
Mr. Ross stated there have been some instances where the turn blade can interfere
with transmission of certain kinds of radios. He didn’t know if that had been
tested for smaller systems.
Commissioner Carper asked as the ordinance is designed, would it be acceptable
to put additional equipment on the tower if it could withstand it structurally.
Mr. Morrison replied yes, that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Person asked for follow-up on the phone towers. He asked if there
were instances of cell phone towers and wind generation towers together.
Mr. Ross replied he didn’t know of any instances of that.
Commissioner Person asked if a rooftop, a micro system or a system in an R4
zone would be allowed under a special permit.
Mr. Morrison replied under the proposed ordinance the systems are only allowed
in commercial districts.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kramer indicated he would like to add language recognizing that this
is an evolving industry with the door open for discussion. He remarked that it is an
important green technology and the City needs to embrace new opportunities.
Chair Person said he agreed and asked if staff had suggestions to cover that issue.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 22
Mr. Morrison noted staff could add language to the findings section that would
indicate that and make it known to the Council.
Commissioner Morris remarked that ordinances are amended often as the zoning
code is a living document. He said he was comfortable with the process.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the draft zoning
ordinance amendment pertaining to Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) with
language recognizing that this is an evolving industry. As technology evolves, there
could be further discussion showing a progressive attitude for green technology.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 23
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to electronic signs and minor changes
regarding bufferyards and outdoor dining areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
electronic signs, bufferyards and outdoor dining areas and set the second reading for May 3, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the city adopt ordinances to update regulations and performance standards for electronic
signs and outdoor dining areas?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Proposed is an amendment to Section 36-362, along with others, of the zoning ordinance,
pertaining to signs to establish performance standards for electronic signs, and amendments to the
zoning ordinance regarding the location of outdoor dining areas adjacent to residential uses and to
correct errors in the code relating to references to bufferyards.
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission and City Council Reviews:
The Planning Commission reviewed the existing zoning ordinance pertaining to signs and the
proposed draft amendment on August 19, 2009, in a study session. Staff also discussed the proposed
sign amendments and Planning Commission comments at a City Council study session on
November 2, 2009. As a result of concerns raised at these meetings, staff invited Daktronics, a
major manufacturer of digital message centers, to demonstrate the effects of brightness and
animation/flashing at a Planning Commission study session on January 6, 2010. The following
concerns were raised and discussed at both the Planning Commission and City Council study
sessions:
1. Brightness standards.
Concerns were raised that the ordinance needs to better define brightness. At the study
session, staff explained that the brightness standards are designed to emulate a standard,
non-electronic back-lit sign. In the draft ordinance, brightness standards were divided
into two categories due to the level of technology needed to adjust and monitor
brightness. Older signs typically do not have the technology to automatically adjust
brightness throughout the day. Therefore, for existing signs, there is a separate daytime
and nighttime standard. New signs can come with technology that adjusts brightness
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Electronic Signs Page 2
levels throughout the day to meet a set level that is dependent upon the existing ambient
light levels. If it is a bright sunny day, then the sign will be brighter to compensate for
the sunlight. If it is a cloudy day, then the sign will automatically compensate to dim the
sign due to the lack of sunlight. The same is true for various times of day/night. The
sign does not need to be as bright during the night, morning and evening as it does
during the day. Both of these standards are an industry standard and are commonly
required by city ordinances. The draft ordinance proposes to allow an electronic sign to
be 30% brighter than the ambient light level in all zoning districts. This is a residential
standard. (For comparison, sign companies recommend allowing signs to be 80%
brighter in commercial areas.)
2. Perceived motion/flashing.
A request was made that the definition of flashing signs be revised to ensure it covers all
possible manners of flashing. Following the study session, Tom Scott, City Attorney
reviewed the definition, along with the entire ordinance, to ensure the language is legal,
enforceable and all encompassing. Some changes were made to the draft to incorporate
the City Attorney’s recommendations.
3. Minimum time a message must be displayed.
Concerns were raised that the proposed three second minimum is too short. At the sign
demonstration, Daktronics demonstrated how a sign will appear at different rates of
change. They showed intervals of one, three and ten seconds. Those in attendance
agreed that one second is too rapid and resembles flashing, 10 seconds was too long and
reduces the effectiveness of the sign, and three seconds for most in attendance seemed to
be acceptable. This matter was discussed again at the March 17, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting and the Planning Commission agreed that given all the
demonstration, research and discussion, three seconds was shown to be acceptable and
they made that recommendation to the City Council.
4. Night time use in residential areas.
Should signs in residential areas be turned off or remain static at night? This is a feature
that is easily applicable to new signs because they typically include the technology to
operate a sign in this manner. Older existing signs typically do not include this
technology, and therefore, cannot meet this standard. It is felt the new brightness
standards, flashing, animation and three second rule should eliminate or at least reduce
the potential impact the signs have on adjacent residential properties.
Notification to owners of existing signs:
A letter summarizing the proposed changes was sent to all property owners that currently own and
operate an electronic sign. The letter was hand delivered to most properties, and mailed to those
that could not be reached. In addition to hand delivering the letters, staff reviewed the changes in
person with the sign owners. Only one property owner, DESQ, located on Hwy 100, expressed
concerns about the limitations on scrolling, flashing and brightness levels.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Electronic Signs Page 3
City Attorney Review:
The draft amendment was reviewed by the city attorney, and his recommendations were
incorporated into the draft.
Miscellaneous Housekeeping Amendments:
In addition to the proposed language pertaining to electronic signage, staff is recommending several
amendments that strike all remaining references to bufferyards. In 2007, the city adopted an
amendment revising the landscaping ordinances. This amendment included eliminating the
bufferyard terminology. Some references were not properly removed, and they are included in this
amendment to be struck from the code.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The following is a summary of the proposed changes.
Lighting/Brightness
Existing Ordinance:
The current ordinance regulates externally lighted signs only. It does not adequately address backlit
or electronic signs. The ordinance is intended to prevent the light source from being a safety hazard
or nuisance to traffic and adjacent property owners. The current ordinance does not establish a
maximum brightness level allowed for a sign. The only language in the current ordinance addressing
lighting is as follows:
(6) Lighting. Direct rays or glare of light from an illuminated sign shall not be visible from
public rights-of-way or property other than that on which the illuminated sign is located. Any
external source of illumination must be provided with shields or lenses which concentrate the light
onto the sign.
Proposed Ordinance:
In addition to adding language to prevent lighting from becoming a safety or nuisance problem, the
amendment proposes adding standards that would:
1. Allow electronic signs existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance to have a brightness
level up to 5000 nits during the day and 500 nits at night. These limits are an industry
standard, and are common in city codes. (Nits are a unit of sign illumination. One nit is
equal to one candela per square meter)
2. Allow electronic signs installed after the adoption of this ordinance to have a brightness level
that does not exceed .3 above the ambient light levels (130% of the ambient light level)
existing throughout the day and night. This method is becoming the preferred method of
measuring brightness for new signs because it incorporates new technology that
automatically adjusts the brightness to the existing ambient light levels throughout the day,
be it sunny, cloudy, morning, evening or night.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Electronic Signs Page 4
3. Require new signs to be certified to meet the brightness and malfunction standards of the
ordinance. It also requires the sign to be recertified at any time the city determines the sign
does not comply with the code.
Electronic Sign Performance Standards.
Existing Ordinance:
The current ordinance does not adequately address today’s electronic sign technology. While the
ordinance prohibits flashing signs, it does not adequately address animation, scrolling and frequency
in which the message changes.
Proposed Ordinance:
The draft ordinance proposes to expand on the type of prohibited signs by adding signs that rotate,
revolve, scroll, move, flash, blink, fade, or are animated.
The draft ordinance also proposes to add a section specifically addressing electronic signs. This
section will:
1. Establish a maximum sign face of 20 feet in residential and park & open space zoning
districts and 40 feet in all other zoning districts.
2. Require a message to be displayed for at least three seconds.
3. Requires existing signs to comply with all sections of this ordinance, except size. Signs that
are too big can continue as legally non-conforming. This means all existing signs that are
animated, or change messages more often than three seconds, such as DESQ, will have to
comply with the new standards.
4. Require all messages to change instantly without fading or any other special effects.
Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Signs
Non-Conforming Signs:
Rotating and electronic signs are proposed to be listed as prohibited on billboards.
Sign Permits:
Sign permits would expire if they are not installed within 180 days of issuance of the permit.
Miscellaneous Amendments Not Related to Signs
Bufferyards and outdoor dining regulations:
Up to three years ago, bufferyards were utilized to protect sensitive land uses from other adjacent
land uses. They were removed from the zoning ordinance in 2007 when the landscaping ordinance
was amended. References to bufferyards were intended to be removed at that time; however, some
references were missed, and are proposed to be removed now.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Electronic Signs Page 5
In most cases, the reference to bufferyards can be removed without affecting the intent of the
regulation. There are, however, a couple references that need to be modified to make up for the lack
of a bufferyard. Specifically, in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial Districts, outdoor seating is allowed to
occur next to residential uses, if a building wall or F8 wall is constructed. The F8 wall was part of
the bufferyard ordinance, and is no longer defined or utilized by the zoning ordinance. The
amendment proposes to eliminate the building wall and F8 wall reference and to simply prohibit
outdoor seating when it is adjacent to a building with a residential dwelling on the main floor.
Planning Commission:
A public hearing was conducted on March 17, 2010. No comments were received at the hearing,
and the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-1). A copy of the meeting minutes is
attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Table of existing electronic signs in St. Louis Park
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-162, 36-193, 36-194,
36-243, 36-361, 36-362, 36-403, and 36-405
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-10-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-162, 36-193, 36-194, 36-243, 36,-
361, 36-362, 36-403, and 36-405 are hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding
underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations.
(b) Findings. The city finds that:
***
(7) Electronic signs, including video display signs, are highly visible from long distances and at
very wide viewing angles both day and night and are designed to catch the eye of persons
in their vicinity and hold it for extended periods of time. If left uncontrolled, electronic
signs, including video display signs, are highly distracting to drivers and driver distraction
continues to be a significant underlying cause of traffic accidents.
***
(c) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
***
Sign, changing means a sign whose message can be readily changed, either by manual or
automatic means.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 6
Sign, Electronic - any characteristic of a sign that appears to have movement or that appears to
change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its
components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure, or any
other component of the sign. This includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or
animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through
digital input, digital ink or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a
series of images, displays or video.
Sign, flashing means any illuminated sign, which is not a changing sign which emits an
intermittent a blinking or flashing light, or creates the illusion of intermittent blinking or flashing
light by means of animation.
***
Sign, rotating means a sign or a portion of a sign which moves in a rotating, oscillating or similar
manner other than changing signs.
***
(e) Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited in all use districts:
***
(11) Signs, including the sign structure or any other component of the sign, that rotate,
revolve, scroll, move, flash, blink, fade, or are animated.
(f) General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory use
in all use districts:
(1) Permit required. A sign permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any sign.
***
c. Sign permits shall be null and void if the sign is not installed 180 days after the issuance
of a permit.
***
(6) Lighting. All signs must meet the following standards: Direct rays or glare of light from
an illuminated sign shall not be visible from public right-of-way or property other than
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 7
that on which the illuminated sign is located. Any external source of illumination must be
provided with shields or lenses which concentrate the light onto the sign.
a. Direct rays or glare of light from an illuminated sign shall not be visible from public
right-of-way or property other than that on which the illuminated sign is located.
Any external source of illumination must be provided with shields or lenses which
concentrate the light onto the sign.
b. Brightness Standards:
1. The sign shall not be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
2. The sign shall not be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a
motor vehicle.
3. The sign shall not be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
4. The sign shall not exceed a maximum illumination of 5000 nits (candelas per
square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits
(candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign’s
face;
5. Electronic signs installed after May 28, 2010 shall meet the following standards:
a. A mechanism that immediately turns off the sign if it malfunctions.
b. A mechanism that automatically adjusts the illuminative brightness of the
display according to existing ambient light conditions.
c. The sign shall not exceed a brightness level of 0.3 foot candles above ambient
light as measured from 100 feet from the sign. All measurements shall be
taken with the meter pointing at the sign and perpendicular to the sign face.
The ambient light level shall be taken with the sign off. The sign brightness
level shall be taken with the sign displaying a full white screen.
6. The electronic sign must be certified as complying with the brightness standards
and the malfunction provision. The Certification must come from the sign
manufacturer or other qualified individual and must be submitted with the sign
permit application and at any time thereafter as requested by the city.
7. The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the
brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment
must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the city.
***
(h) Special provisions. In addition to the general provisions contained in subsection (f) of this
section, these special provisions apply to the following types of signs:
***
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 8
(8) Electronic signs. Electronic signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
a. The sign face shall not exceed:
1. 20 square feet in a residential district and the Park and Open Space District.
2. 40 square feet in all other districts.
b. The maximum sign face established above shall not be in excess of the maximum sign
area allowed in table 36-362A.
c. No more than one sign face may be visible from any same location off-site.
d. Messages and/or images must be displayed for at least three seconds.
e. Electronic signs existing on May 28, 2010 must comply with this section, except that
electronic signs that exceed the maximum size limit above may continue as a non-
conforming sign as to size.
f. Messages or displays must change instantaneously. Using any type of special effect to
change from one message or display to another is prohibited.
(i) Nonconforming signs.
***
(5) Billboards.
a. Any billboard in existence as of the date of the ordinance from which this section is
derived was adopted may remain in place if it is not increased in sign area or height
and is maintained in conformance with the general provisions of this chapter. The
following are not permitted on billboards:
1. Flashing signs.
2. Changing signs. , unless they are limited to a display of either time, temperature
or stock market indices.
3. Rotating signs.
4. Electronic signs.
***
Sec. 36-162. Restrictions and performance standards.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 9
***
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (c)(7), (c)(8), (c)(9) and (c)(10) (d) and (e) of
this section, the listed terms are defined as follows:
Back yard means the area between a line created by extending the rear face of the principal
building and the rear lot line.
Front yard means the area between a line created by extending the front face of the
principal building and the street in front of the house.
Side yard means area between the front and back building walls and the side lot line.
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a C-1 district:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the building
located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if a
residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
***
(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in any C-2 district:
***
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 10
(7) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if the use is separated
from any adjacent to a parcel that is occupied by a residential dwelling use by a
building wall or F8 wall. This provision will not apply if the first floor of the building
located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if a
residential dwelling is located above the restaurant.
***
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in an I-P district shall
***
(4) Group Daycare/Nursery Schools.
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and
such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence and bufferyard D.
***
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines
and shall be screened with a bufferyard D.
***
Section 36-361 Off Street Parking areas
***
(m) Off-street loading facilities.
***
(2) Loading docks, berths and facilities.
***
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 11
g. Screening. All berths shall be screened from view from the adjoining streets with a
bufferyard F and any property in an R district. by a bufferyard F. Materials used shall
provide screening which The screening shall consist of a minimum 10-foot high wall
and landscaping, is a minimum of ten feet high when installed. Walls shall be
designed to be harmonious with the principal structure. The width of the driveway at
the property line shall be excluded from the bufferyard requirement.
***
Article VI. Non-conformities
***
Section 36-403. Definitions.
Nonconforming bufferyards landscaping means bufferyards landscaping that which does not
conform to the distance, height, screening, density, material or planting requirements of this chapter.
***
Section 36-405. Special requirements.
***
(7) Nonconforming parking.
***
c. Uses with nonconforming parking in terms of numbers of stalls shall need not be
required to provide additional parking to bring the use into compliance if such
parking would occupy required yards or interfere with screening requirements
bufferyards.
(8) Nonconforming landscaping bufferyards. If buildings were existing on a parcel of land on
the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived which, due to their
location, make construction of the required landscaping bufferyards impossible, then an
alternative landscaping plan may be approved as outlined in section 364. the following
reductions in the bufferyard requirements may be made if the required bufferyard is:
a. A bufferyard B and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, a bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using 100 percent of the
required plant units.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 12
b. Either A or B and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F1 fence
and 50 percent of the plant units required for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard shall
be installed.
c. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F2 fence plus 50
plant units for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard.
d. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F4 fence
shall be installed plus 25 plant units for each 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
e. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least ten feet but less than 15
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using a BW1 berm wall
plus 75 plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
f. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than ten
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall and 50
plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
g. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, the bufferyard
shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall plus 25 plant units per 100
linear feet of required bufferyard.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-10-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing March 17, 2010
First Reading April 19, 2010
Second Reading May 3, 2010
Date of Publication May 13, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect May 28, 2010
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 13
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 14
Sign LocationHeightWidthSign faceNumber of sign facesDisplay ColorChange Frequency (seconds)AAA5'10'50 sf2Red2AARCEE4'10'40 sf2Multi ColorScrolling & flashingLenox8"5'3.5 sf2Red1SLP Evangelical Free2'7'14'2Red2Timothy Lutheran2'8"4'11 sf2Red2Distinctive Dentistry2'10'20 sf1Red2Alaska Eatery15"8'4"10.5 sf2Red2Associated Bank4'18'72 sf1Red1-2 & scrollingBenilde SM3'6'18 sf2Red3 & scrollingWolfe Lake1'5'5 sf4Red.5 & scrollingTCF Bank18"5'7.5 sf3Red3 secondsHoliday (Mtka Blvd)18"4'6 sf2RedStationaryMarathon (Mtka Blvd) (2 signs per face)8" 8" 4' 4'2.7 sf 2.7 sf 2RedStationaryMobile (Excelsior) (2 signs per face)18" 12" 4' 32"6 sf 2.7 sf2RedStationarySA (Excelsior)14"3'3.5 sf2RedStationaryHoliday (Hwy 7)3.5'7'24.5 sf2RedStationaryJewish Community Center6"7'3.5 sf1Red1 & scrollingKnollwood Liquor2'8'16 sf1RedIllegibleMeeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric SignsPage 15
Excerpts – Official Planning Commission Minutes
City of St. Louis Park
March 17, 2010
C. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance relating to Electronic Signs
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 10-10-ZA
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked if one light flashing was considered a sign.
Mr. Morrison replied flashing lights were not permitted.
Commissioner Kramer asked if a marquee would be considered a flashing sign.
Mr. Morrison explained marquee signs would depend on the approval process,
such as through a variance in a Planned Unit Development, or part of a formal
approval.
Commissioner Kramer asked about signs with computer generated text.
Ms. McMonigal said the surveys done by staff indicated there were more reader
board signs which would be allowed to continue, but they would have to change
the message to three seconds. She said staff was not aware of any computer
generated signs in the City.
Commissioner Robertson asked if the definition of flashing was less than three
seconds, and if it was more than three seconds it was not flashing.
Mr. Morrison replied that was correct.
Commissioner Carper asked if signs that depict steam, water vapor or smoke
would be permitted.
Mr. Morrison replied the intent of the ordinance as written was to prohibit the appearance
of any type of motion. Staff would need to look at it and make a determination.
Commissioner Carper asked about graphically decorated vehicles which
effectively become billboards.
Mr. Morrison replied that staff currently controls and enforces regulations
concerning parked vehicles.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 16
As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said he thought it was a good amendment, but he didn’t
think the three seconds went far enough. A three second change was still a flash.
He wanted to voice his opposition and could not vote to approve for that reason.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison agreed with that position and wondered if they
should move forward with a provision asking staff and Council to look at it and
extend longer than three, to possibly five seconds.
Ms. McMonigal noted they could make a motion with that amendment.
Commissioner Kramer asked if this was a safety issue or visual pollution.
Commissioner Robertson replied it was both a safety issue and visual pollution.
Commissioner Kramer stated he agreed it was distracting and could be a safety issue,
but that could be said for longer signs. If it was visual pollution, it was also distracting.
Commissioner Carper commented that he agreed with the three-second limitation.
They had taken testimony, had a great deal of discussion and had seen
demonstrations on this. In his opinion three seconds seemed to be the industry
standard. There were no safety concerns expressed by those present. He would
vote against anything that would change what had been recommended by City
staff.
Commissioner Kramer understood the language and asked what they had gained
by regulating it to be three seconds versus two seconds. He was unsure what the
improvement was.
Commissioner Robertson stated there was no improvement.
Ms. McMonigal stated the big issue was about scrolling and moving. In looking
at changeable signs, staff looked at how quickly or slowly they were changing.
Most were close to three seconds now, so there was probably not a lot of change.
The ordinance is more about big movement signs, not the smaller signs on the
local roads.
Commissioner Ford stated making the time limit two seconds longer might not
seem like a big difference, but switching it was like multiplying the time by three,
which was actually a very significant change.
Mr. Morrison stated staff conducted a survey of the existing signs in the city and
most were around three seconds. It seemed to be the standard. The only
complaint staff received regarded scrolling and flashing signage on Highway 100
with a one-second transition between messages. That was one of the reasons for
considering three seconds. He said most signs in the community are relatively
small and three seconds have been used to make those signs more effective. If
they went to longer messages, the message may keep a driver’s attention longer.
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 17
Commissioner Robertson indicated if they were looking at driving distractions,
three seconds was less time than it took to see a sign and drive by it. They would
see it change one or two times and would anticipate the change and be distracted.
If it were longer, the signs would feel stationary and would not be distracting.
Because it changes in a shorter time frame, it was hard to come up with an
appropriate length. Shorter lengths would be distracting. If it appeared
stationary, people wouldn’t be waiting for another message.
Commissioner Morris spoke about the study session presentation which demonstrated
1-2-3 seconds testing. The Council wanted a recommendation. Most signs were one
or two and only a few were three. He said he supported the staff recommendation
without any change to the timing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison thought everything else in this amendment was the
right move. She was still bothered by three seconds, but supported the ordinance.
Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of the draft zoning
ordinance amendment pertaining to electronic signs and miscellaneous items.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a
vote of 6-1 (Robertson opposed).
Meeting of April 19, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Electric Signs Page 18