The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010/09/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update 2. 7:10 p.m. Bidding and Construction / Project Management 7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes September 7, 2010 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims 6. Old Business 7. New Business 7a. Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group). Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) related to The West End project. 8. Communications 9. Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance presented by Boy Scout Pack 225 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Meeting of September 20, 2010 Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.) 5. Boards and Commissions -- None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Urban Park Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close the public hearing. Motion to adopt Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Urban Park. 6b. Public Hearing - Wine & 3.2 Liquor License – Wok in the Park Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application from A Wok in the Park, LLC, dba Wok in the Park for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license to be located at 3005 Utah Avenue South with the license term through March 1, 2011. 6c. Item Removed From Agenda. 6d. Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for 2011 and set Second Reading for October 4, 2010. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Resolution to Join ICLEI – Local Government for Sustainability Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution to become a member of ICLEI’s – Local Governments for Sustainability’s and begin undertaking five milestones to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions in the City. 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 September 20, 2010 Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 - P.I.D. 17-117-21-33-0087 4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 4240 Utica Ave. So., St. Louis Park, MN, 55416 – P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0208 4c. Adopt Resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) related to The West End project 4d. Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 89-121 4e. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims 4f. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes February 16, 2010 4g. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 4h. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes April 20, 2010 4i. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 4j. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes July 20, 2010 4k. Approve for Filing Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes April 21, 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: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the planning and project development activities related to this project – Project No. 20120100, and for Council to provide feedback on recent project activities including the development and recommendation of a new concept for the proposed interchange. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The following input from Council is desired: • Is further information desired about the two newly developed concepts? • Does Council support changing the preferred option (concept) from the Option 4 – Button Hook Ramps with RABs to the newly developed 6 Leg South RABs option? • Does Council still feel comfortable with continuing Phase 3 project development work (preliminary engineering and environmental assessment)? BACKGROUND: History The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. The project also includes pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City. Concept Designs At the June 28, 2010 City Council Study Session, staff discussed with Council the Project Management Team (PMT) findings and recommendation for a preferred concept. At that time, the members of the PMT and staff recommended Option 4, Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts (RABs), as the preferred concept for the new interchange design (see attachment: Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs). It was agreed that the City’s consultant, SEH, Inc. continue the remaining Phase 3 work (preliminary design and environmental assessment) on the Option 4 concept and public meetings were to be scheduled with area stakeholders to obtain their input on Option 4. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Public Meetings Public meetings were conducted on August 4th and 5th to solicit feed back on the ramp and roundabout configurations respective to their area. The meeting on August 4th engaged area property owners, business owners and residents in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange and the meeting on August 5th engaged residents of the South Oak Hill Neighborhood located adjacent to the southwest quadrant. Turn out at both meetings was light. Seven people attended the meeting on the 4th and two people attended the meeting on the 5th. At the meetings, staff from the City and SEH, Inc. discussed the design and listened to questions and concerns with regard to refinements of the ramp and roundabout locations and access changes in these two areas. One of the design refinements to the ramp and roundabout configuration in the northeast quadrant is the proposed closure of Republic Avenue at Walker Street due to its close proximity to the roundabout. The business owners in this area who attended the meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the closure. They felt it would be more difficult for customers and delivery vehicles to reach their businesses. With the closure, access to the area would have to shift to Gorham Avenue. No comments were generated from the South Oak Hill Neighborhood notices and meeting. Value Engineering Study During the second week of August, a Value Engineering (VE) Study was conducted by Mn/DOT for the improvements to the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. VE studies are required on all federally funded projects in excess of $20 million. The study was facilitated by a national engineering consulting firm, HDR Engineering, Inc. and included several engineers from Mn/DOT with expertise in the various disciplines associated with this project. Members of the study team had little to no prior knowledge of the project except for two city staff members on the team. The goal of the study was to take an independent look at the project and identify possible improvements to the project that may add value. “Value” being defined as a measure which could decrease project cost and/or increase project performance. Examples of ideas that may add value include recommendations on: construction methods, construction materials, construction staging, or a design improvement. The VE study team generated 48 different ideas for the project that were developed into 8 recommendations. One of the recommendations that staff thinks has considerable merit was the introduction of a new interchange concept. The new concept recommended by the study team for consideration is actually a design improvement to the tight diamond interchange concept the PMT identified earlier this year as a final candidate for the preferred option. Consideration of Concepts The new concept recommended by the VE study team is essentially a very tight diamond interchange with a roundabout beneath the bridge which controls the ramp traffic along with roundabouts at Walker and Lake Streets. Based on the VE study team recommendation, the City’s consultant, SEH, Inc. developed two viable alternatives for city consideration (see attachments: New Concept – SPUI with 3 RABs; and, New Concept – 6 Leg South RABs). During the past month, SEH, Inc. and Mn/DOT have been evaluating these two new concepts for fatal flaws. None have been identified and Mn/DOT will support either of the two new concepts as a preferred option. Some of the advantages of the new concepts over Option 4 are: significant reduction in right of way impacts, one less roundabout to construct / maintain / traverse, and improved driver familiarity. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Disadvantages include: increased construction costs (which should be offset by reduced right of way expenses) along with additional street / lane crossings for pedestrians along Louisiana Avenue. Based on a variety of factors, Engineering and Community Development staff recommends pursuing the 6 Leg South RABs concept as the preferred concept. This option meets all the goals of the project and should be more positively received by the public as it minimizes or eliminates the right of way and access concerns associated with Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs. Next Steps Phase 3 work has been on hold for several months now due to the additional effort undertaken this past spring to choose between the Button Hook and Tight Diamond concepts as well as the recent time needed to conduct the VE Study. Direction on a preferred option is necessary at this time to allow Phase 3 work to continue and to prevent further slippage in the overall project schedule. Staff is planning to conduct an area wide public meeting during October to update all stakeholders and interested persons on the proposed project and to solicit feed back on the preferred option. Completion of Phase 3 work is contemplated in the spring of 2011. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated total project costs for Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs at this time are: Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.) Construction $16,500,000 Engineering $ 3,300,000 Right of Way $ 3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $21,800,000 At this time, a detailed estimate for the two new concepts has not been determined. However, it is generally agreed that total project costs will be essentially the same for all three concepts described herein. Right of way costs will likely be less for the two new concepts, compared to Option 4, while construction costs may be higher. Engineering expenses are essentially the same for all options. Funding Sources and Opportunities $7,630,000 in federal funds have been secured through the Met Council’s State Transportation Program Urban Grant solicitation. Staff is continuing efforts to pursue funding through other grants, solicitations and agreements. The 2010 Federal appropriations bill has authorized $600 million for National Infrastructure Investments grants called TIGER II which the City has applied for in the amount of $14,000,000. Staff has also applied for Mn/DOT Municipal Agreement funds in the amount of $594,000. Staff is preparing to apply for funding (up to 50% of the total project cost) under a joint Mn/DOT and Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) solicitation for a Transportation Economic Development Pilot Program expected to be released later this month. This pilot program is designed to address both the state’s transportation system needs and local/regional economic development objectives in promoting job creation. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Current funding for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs New Concept – SPUI with 3 RABs New Concept – 6 Leg South RABs Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 17 20 1 4CENTERTNR21W 17 117 S E CTI ON965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 1000 +00 1005+00 965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 100 0+00 1005+00 10+0015+0020+0025+0030+0010+00 10+00 10+0045+00 30+00 60+00 65+00 965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 100 0+00 1005+00 10+0015+0020+0025+0030+0010+00 25+00 13+00 19+00 19+00 22 + 00 23+00 13+00 34+0041+0061+00 64+00 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER SECTION LINE DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 Loui si ana AveRepu blic Ave Walker St Walker St TH 7 W Lake St Loui si ana AveMonitor StTH 7 INTERCHANGE LAYOUT T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. WITH ROUNDABOUTS BUTTON HOOK RAMPS OPTION 4 PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER SECTION LINE DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 5 WB TH 7 EB TH 7 LOUISIANA AVE. WALKER ST. W. LAKE ST. REPUBLIC A VE.LAKE ST. W MONITOR ST. WALKER ST. INTERCHANGE T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 KILMER LN. 4.0 acres Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 6 WB TH 7 EB TH 7 LOUI SI ANA AVE. WALKER ST. W. LAKE ST. REPUBLIC A VE.LAKE ST. W MONITOR ST. WALKER ST. INTERCHANGE T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 KILMER LN. 6 Leg South Option Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 7 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Bidding and Construction / Project Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None - the purpose of this discussion is to obtain Council input on areas of public sector bidding and construction / project management it wishes to discuss at a future study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are there specific topic areas relating to public sector bidding and construction/project management that the City Council wants to make sure are researched and discussed at a future study session? BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting held on September 7, 2010, Council expressed an interest in discussing bidding and construction / project management. Council requested this topic be discussed at a future Study Session. As staff considered this request, questions were raised over what specific areas or topics might be of interest and how to go about this. Rather than assuming the information the Council might want to see at a study session, staff felt it would be more productive to ask. Once Council interest is better determined, staff will be able to present relevant information for discussion. To facilitate Council input, staff has attached “Table of Contents”, web pages, and a Mn/DOT State Aid document which show various bidding and construction / project management topics which could be discussed. Staff is interested in which topics shown on these various documents might be of interest to Council. Staff is also interested in other topics of interest not shown on any of these attachments. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: LMC Handbook – Chapter 23: Expenditures, Purchasing, and Contracts Mn/DOT Web Page – Construction Tools Mn/DOT State Aid - Contract Administration Guidance Document Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction – 2005 Edition Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager PART VI FINANCE, BUDGETING, AND DEBT CHAPTER 23: EXPENDITURES, PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS Expenditures, purchasing, and contracts .................................................................................................................... 3 I. Expenditures .............................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Legal expenditures ..................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Invalid expenditures ................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Limitation on city expenditures ................................................................................................................. 5 II. Procedure for paying claims ...................................................................................................................... 5 A. Filing a declaration of claim ...................................................................................................................... 5 B. Payroll ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 C. Audits and allowances ............................................................................................................................... 7 D. Issuance of order ........................................................................................................................................ 7 E. Prompt payment ......................................................................................................................................... 8 F. Immediate payment of claims .................................................................................................................... 9 G. Independent boards and commissions ........................................................................................................ 9 H. Account-book entry ................................................................................................................................... 9 I. Limits on issuing checks .......................................................................................................................... 10 J. Duplicate checks ...................................................................................................................................... 10 K. Petty cash (imprest funds) ........................................................................................................................ 10 L. Judgments ................................................................................................................................................ 11 M. Home rule charter cities procedure for paying claims ......................................................................... 11 III. Purchasing ................................................................................................................................................ 11 A. General purchasing .................................................................................................................................. 11 B. Making purchases .................................................................................................................................... 15 IV. Selling city property and equipment ........................................................................................................ 17 A. Salvage operations ................................................................................................................................... 17 B. Restricted sales ......................................................................................................................................... 17 C. Sales to other government agencies ......................................................................................................... 17 D. Electronic sales of surplus supplies, material, and equipment ................................................................. 18 V. Contracts in general ................................................................................................................................. 18 VI. Competitive bidding requirements ........................................................................................................... 18 A. General requirements ............................................................................................................................... 19 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 2 B. Local improvements ................................................................................................................................. 19 C. Bidding procedures .................................................................................................................................. 20 D. Best value contracting .............................................................................................................................. 25 E. Exemptions .............................................................................................................................................. 26 VII. Emergency Contracts ............................................................................................................................... 27 A. Cities and other political subdivisions ..................................................................................................... 27 B. Procedures for making an emergency contract under the Emergency Management Act......................... 28 C. Towns (and possibly cities)...................................................................................................................... 28 D. Procedure for making emergency contracts under township authority for emergency contracts ............ 29 E. Local sanitary districts ............................................................................................................................. 29 F. Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (HRAs) ................................................................................... 30 G. Port Authorities ........................................................................................................................................ 30 H. Emergency contracts with a city official .................................................................................................. 30 VIII. Purchasing consultant services ................................................................................................................. 31 A. Engineers and architects........................................................................................................................... 31 B. Registered land surveyor .......................................................................................................................... 33 C. Accountants .............................................................................................................................................. 33 D. Other consultants ..................................................................................................................................... 33 E. Selecting a consultant............................................................................................................................... 33 F. Bidding for consultant services ................................................................................................................ 35 G. Contracting with consultants .................................................................................................................... 35 IX. Construction contracts.............................................................................................................................. 35 X. Retainage.................................................................................................................................................. 38 A. Progress payments ................................................................................................................................... 38 B. Optional method ....................................................................................................................................... 38 XI. Conflict of interest in contracts ................................................................................................................ 39 XII. Contracts with other governmental agencies ........................................................................................... 39 A. Road construction contracts ..................................................................................................................... 39 B. Contracts for other public services ........................................................................................................... 40 XIII. How this chapter applies to home rule charter cities ............................................................................... 40 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 3 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 4 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 5 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 6 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 7 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Table of Contents • Contracting 101 o Pre-Award o Post-Award • Summary of Procedures for Construction of a State Aid Project • Summary of Procedures for Construction of a Federal Aid Project • State Aid Projects • Federal Aid Projects • Project Authority • Construction Reports o Form Requirements o Change in Contract Construction Status o Weekly Construction Diary and Statement of Working Days • Project Diary • Subcontracts • Pre-Construction Conference • Documentation of Pay Items o Method Measurement o Item Record Account o Source Documentation o Plan Quantity Documentation o Standard Plate Items o Vehicular Measure • Payment Provisions, Federal Aid o Fund Encumbrance o Partial Payment Process o Material on Hand Payments o Process for Finals of a Federal Aid Project • Contract Time o Working Day Charges o Contract Time Extensions o Liquidated Damages • Contract Changes o Change Orders o Work Order – Minor Extra Work o Supplemental Agreements o Negotiated Prices o Force Account Work and Forms o Claims • Materials o Schedule of Materials Control o Technical Certification • Materials Certification Process Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 8 • Labor • Equal Employment Opportunity • Links • State Aid Construction Resources Contracting 101 The following questions and answers are intended to provide simple ways to improve and summarize the existing contracting process. Pre-Award 1. What types of contracting courses and resources are available/ • Classes offered by Mn/DOT Training Office. • Plan Reading • Contract Administration 101 • Contract Time • Traffic Control Over view • Inspector 101 • Technician Certification Courses • “Utilities Coordination” class to be offered by Mn/DOT soon. • Mn/DOT’s Construction Tools website has many resources the contractor and agency will benefit from. 2. What are the options for funding? • Information of State Aid funding is available at the State Aid for Local Transportation Website . • The Electronic State Aid Manual, ESAM, is completely updated and redesigned, offers the official guidance, rules, and procedures for state and federal aid transportation projects. • (Steps to secure funding, state aid website?) • (eligibility for partial funding) 3. “Working Days” versus “Completion Date”, which is better? • What is the goal? Pros and cons • How do I calculate working days on the job? • The chapter on contract time should be referenced for information on how to calculate working days on the job, track days and calculate remaining days accurately. • Weekly construction diaries and statement of working days must be submitted on all projects as this is the only record of working day charges. 4. Where can I find information on Special Provisions and Technical Certification Requirements? • Mn/DOT’s Special Provisions website offers technical support on: Special Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 9 Provisions Boiler Plates, Special Provision Format, Proposal Sequence and other topics. • Technical Certification is required for construction and/or materials testing technicians on highway construction projects. • Technical Certification courses, schedules are available on line. 5. What should be considered when developing a schedule? • An accurate schedule is needed at the beginning of the project. • The schedule should be used as a tool and referenced regularly. • All parties should be aware of the schedule from the beginning. • Plan ahead and develop a critical path (mainly utilities). • Property acquisition can be a lengthy process, make sure to plan accordingly • Requires coordination with utilities. 6. Where do I find information on prevailing wage rates that will apply to my project? • Payment of prevailing wage rates is required on projects that use State Aid funds and Federal funds. • The Labor website is a good resource on prevailing wage rates for highway projects. If you have any doubt, contact the MnDOT Labor Compliance Unit for advice. • MN Statutes 177.41 to 177.44 establish wage rate requirements. • Additional information on prevailing wage rates can be found at Mn Department of Labor and Industry. 7. How often should a project be advertised for bids? • Advertising requirements vary depending on type of project and funding. • Confirm requirements with funding agency and your local attorney. • Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (MN Statute 471.345) applies if there are no other requirements. • State Aid and Federal Aid Projects require 3 weekly publications, plus 10 days after the last publication date. See MN Statutes 160.17 for County or Town. • Statutes, Rules and Constitution is available at the SALT Finance website. • Some city charters may contain special local bidding requirements. Post-Award 1. Who should I be communicating with during the project? • The State Aid Construction Practices Specialist is your resource person for construction issues. • Communication is needed with all stakeholders on a regular basis. Conducting a weekly meeting with all parties is recommended. • Keep communications open with all local agencies that are involved or may be impacted by your project. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 10 • Utility companies should be contacted as early as possible and included in weekly and pre-construction meeting. • Any issues encountered should be communicated and resolved in a timely manner. 2. How important is documentation? • Clear and concise documentation of pay items is crucial to all construction projects. • All changes to plans must be documented in a timely manner as they occur. • All issues encountered must be documented. • Poor documentation could result in an incomplete contract or worse, litigation. 3. Do you know your tolerances for workmanship/Specification Enforcement? • The current MnDOT Specification Book. • Contact the specific MnDOT Maplewood Lab specialty office for the type of work encountered, if you have any questions, i.e., Bituminous Office, Concrete Office, etc. • When do I dispute poor workmanship? 4. What are the Materials Testing Requirements? • Mn/DOT’s Schedule of Materials Control outlines the minimum sampling and testing required for most materials used in highway construction. • Material failures should be reported/addressed in a timely manner. • Test methods used should be listed and documented. 5. How should the public be involved in your project? • The public should be notified of project progress on a regular basis. • The public should be notified of detours and traffic management. • An information guide about the public involvement process is available on Mn/DOT’s Public Involvement website. 6. When do I need to coordinate with public utilities? • Utility companies should be contacted as early as possible and included in pre-construction and weekly meetings. • If utilities are within Mn/DOT’s Right-of-Way, a permit is required. • Mn/DOT’s utility policies, guidelines, tools, references, permit forms, coordination letter templates, check lists, etc. are located on Mn/DOT’s website at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/contacts.html 7. How do I find information on erosion control? • Mn/DOT’s Office of Environmental Services, Erosion Control website offers information on how to coordinate with and/or receive approval from the following agencies: Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 11 Watershed Districts, County Commissions and Joint County Ditch Authorities, U.S. Coast Guard, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and NPDES Permits. 8. How do I process work orders/change orders/supplemental agreements during a project? • A “Contract Changes Decision Tree” is MnDOT’s method to assist in deciding what contract change method to use for your situation, as an example. • Review and comply with approval limits as set by the Local Agency. Depending on the Local Agency, the engineer may need approval from the County Board, City Council or other agency prior to authorizing additional encumbrance of funds to the contract. • Change Orders – adjustments or minor Plan changes allowed by Contract Specifications. (Note: Payment for change orders cannot be negotiated): • Normal increase/decrease of contract items. • Unacceptable work • Revision of Method of Measurement. • Waiver of liquidated damages. • Other payments specified in the contract. • Work Orders/Minor Extra Work • Work omitted from the Contract and needed to complete the project as let. • Changes that involve extra work needed to complete the contract as let. • Changes that cost $50,000 or less. • Supplemental Agreements – document: • Design or Contract Specification changes. • Major design or Contract Specification errors/ambiguities. • Extra work valued at $50,000 or more. • Process, payment and example language on change orders, work orders and supplemental agreements can be found at contract changes . 9. What are liquidated damages and how are they used on the project? • Ramifications of waving liquidated damages. • Can’t enforce if not documented throughout. • Contractors could “learn” which agencies typically wave a potential abuse. • If a change or extra is needed, address it when it comes up, not at the last moment. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 12 Summary of Procedures for Construction of a State Aid Project Agency Engineer performs the following: • Hold pre-construction conference with contractors and affected utility owners. Notify the DSAE of the upcoming meeting. • Supervise construction, surveying and provide adequate inspection. Construction inspection shall be performed by Certified Technicians. Field tests shall be performed in accordance with the MnDOT Schedule of Materials Control. Link to web • Report Change of Construction Status, starting, completion and any intermediate date to DSAE. • Review contractor payrolls to ensure compliance with State Prevailing Wage Rate (see 5-892.405). • Submit Weekly Construction Diary to the DSAE. • Submit required EEO documentation to the MnDOT EEO Office. • Submit all Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements to the DSAE for approval prior to the work being performed. Submit State Aid Payment Request Form and itemized final estimate on Contract Projects and Force Account Projects. State Aid Force Account is for work being done Using local forces – city/county employees, railroad employee’s utility company Employees etc. Liquidated damages shall be considered, if appropriate. • Submit documentation of construction Engineering costs if reimbursement is requested. • Submit Certificate of Performance upon final acceptance of project. • More info see 5-892.400 1. State Aid staff performs the following: • DSAE inspects progress during construction and upon completion, recommends final acceptance and final payment to State Aid Finance. • State Aid Finance pays the balance of the project (form tp-00064-01) and construction engineering if requested, then completes records. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 13 June 11, 2008 State Aid Contract Administration Guidance . 7 Summary of Procedures for Construction of a Federal Aid Project Agency Engineer performs the following: • Hold pre-construction conference with contractors and affected utility owners. Notify the DSAE of the upcoming meeting. Require the contractor to post the following Labor Compliance Forms and Posters on a prominently located bulletin board or adjacent to the project; a. Notice to Workers (MnDOT Form 02126-02) b. Notice of Nondiscrimination in Employment (17244) c. Wage Rate Information (Form FHWA 1495) d. Fraud Poster (Form FHWA 1022) e. Federal and State Prevailing wage rates from the contract proposal. f. Equal Employment Opportunity Is the Law poster. • Report Change of Construction Status, starting, completion and any intermediate date to DSAE. • Supervise construction, surveying and provide adequate inspection. Construction inspection shall be performed by Certified Technicians. Field tests shall be performed in accordance with the MnDOT Schedule of Materials Control. • Maintain project documentation thru One Office or any other approved procedures. • Submit Weekly Construction Diary to the DSAE. • Submit required EEO documentation to the MnDOT EEO Office. • Submit all Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements to the DSAE for approval prior to the work being performed. • Submit State Aid Payment Request Form and itemized final estimate on Contract Projects and Force Account Projects. Liquidated damages shall be considered, if appropriate. • Submit documentation of construction Engineering costs if reimbursement is requested. Non-construction charges are eligible for reimbursement. • The Delegated Contract Process (D.C.P.) Checklist details the process of project development, project letting and the construction process. Bid opening and Award of Contract. Federal and State Laws and Rules shall be adhered to in the conduct of State-aid and Federal-aid bid openings. All wage rate, job posting and EEO requirements should be referred to The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 14 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION 2005 EDITION Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 15 i DIVISION I GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND COVENANTS Page Definitions and Terms 1101 Abbreviations .....................................................................1 1103 Definitions..........................................................................4 Bidding Requirements and Conditions 1201 Prequalification of Bidders ...............................................18 1202 Contents of Proposal Form ...............................................18 1203 Issuance of Proposal Forms ..............................................18 1204 Interpretation of Quantities in Bid Schedule ....................18 1205 Examination of Plans, Specifications, Special Provisions, and Site of Work ...............................19 1206 Preparation of Proposal ....................................................20 1207 Irregular Proposals............................................................21 1208 Proposal Guaranty............................................................22 1209 Delivery of Proposals.......................................................22 1210 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ...............................23 1211 Combination or Conditional Proposals .............................23 1212 Public Opening of Proposals ............................................24 1213 Disqualification of Bidders...............................................24 Bidding Requirements and Covenants 1301 Consideration of Proposals ...............................................25 1302 Award of Contract ............................................................25 1303 Cancellation of Award......................................................26 1304 Return of Proposal Guaranty............................................26 1305 Requirement of Contract Bond .........................................26 1306 Execution and Approval of Contract................................26 1307 Failure to Execute Contract ..............................................27 Scope of Work 1401 Intent of Contract..............................................................28 1402 Alteration of the Work and Changed Condition...............29 1403 Extra Work .......................................................................32 1404 Maintenance of Traffic.....................................................33 1405 Use of Materials Found on the Project .............................35 1406 Preservation of Historical Objects ....................................35 1407 Final Cleanup ...................................................................36 1408 Value Engineering Incentive............................................36 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 16 ii Control of Work 1501 Authority of the Engineer .................................................39 1502 Plans and Working Drawings...........................................40 1503 Conformity with Plans and Specifications........................40 1504 Coordination of Plans and Specifications.........................41 1505 Cooperation by Contractors..............................................42 1506 Supervision by Contractor................................................42 1507 Utility Property and Service............................................ 43 1508 Construction Stakes, Lines, and Grades .......................... 45 1509 Authority and Duties of the Project Engineer.................. 46 1510 Authority and Duties of the Inspector ............................. 47 1511 Inspection of Work .......................................................... 47 1512 Unacceptable and Unauthorized Work ............................ 48 1513 Restrictions on Movement of Heavy Loads and Equipment ....................................................................... 49 1514 Maintenance During Construction................................... 50 1515 Control of Haul Roads......................................................50 1516 Acceptance of Work .........................................................51 1517 Claims for Compensation Adjustment ..............................51 Control of Material 1601 Source of Supply and Quality ...........................................55 1602 Natural Material Sources..................................................55 1603 Materials: Specifications, Samples, Tests, and Acceptance.................................................................57 1604 Plant Inspection--Commercial Facility.............................59 1605 Substitute Materials..........................................................61 1606 Storage of Materials .........................................................61 1607 Handling Materials...........................................................62 1608 Unacceptable Materials....................................................62 1609 Department-Furnished Material........................................62 Legal Relations and Responsibility to the Public 1701 Laws to be Observed ........................................................63 1702 Permits, Licenses, and Taxes ............................................63 1703 Patented Devices, Materials, and Processes .....................63 1704 Restoration of Surface Opened by Permit ........................63 1705 Federal-Aid Provisions.....................................................64 1706 Employee Health and Welfare ..........................................64 1707 Public Convenience and Safety........................................65 1708 Railroad-Highway Provisions...........................................65 1709 Navigable Waterways.......................................................71 1710 Traffic Control Devices....................................................72 1711 Use of Explosives .............................................................74 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 17 iii 1712 Protection and Restoration of Property ............................74 1713 Forest Protection...............................................................75 1714 Responsibility for Damage Claims...................................75 1715 Opening Sections of the Project to Traffic .......................76 1716 Contractor's Responsibility for Work...............................77 1717 Air, Land, and Water Pollution.........................................78 1718 Furnishing Right of Way ..................................................83 1719 Personal Liability of Public Officials...............................83 1720 No Waiver of Legal Rights...............................................83 1721 Audits...............................................................................83 Prosecution and Progress 1801 Subletting of Contract.......................................................84 1802 Qualifications of Workers ................................................85 1803 Prosecution of Work .........................................................85 1804 Failure to Maintain Satisfactory Progress .........................88 1805 Methods and Equipment ...................................................88 1806 Determination and Extension of Contract Time ...............89 1807 Failure to Complete the Work on Time............................93 1808 Default and Termination of Contract................................94 1809 Emergency Cancellation of Contract................................95 Measurement and Payment 1901 Measurement of Quantities...............................................97 1902 Scope of Payment ...........................................................103 1903 Compensation for Increased or Decreased Quantities........................................................................103 1904 Extra and Force Account Work......................................104 1905 Elimination of Work .......................................................108 1906 Partial Payments .............................................................109 1907 Payment for Surplus Material.........................................110 1908 Final Payment .................................................................111 1909 Assignment of Payments ................................................112 1910 Cost Escalation...............................................................112 1911 Excess or Insufficient Aggregate Production .................113 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 18 iv DIVISION II CONSTRUCTION DETAILS General 2021 Mobilization ...................................................................115 2031 Field Office and Laboratory ...........................................116 2051 Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads..................122 Grading 2101 Clearing and Grubbing ...................................................127 2102 Pavement Marking Removal ..........................................131 2103 Building Removal ...........................................................133 2104 Removing Pavement and Miscellaneous Structures.......135 2105 Excavation and Embankment .........................................143 2111 Test Rolling ....................................................................164 2112 Subgrade Preparation......................................................166 2118 Aggregate Surfacing.......................................................168 2123 Equipment Rental...........................................................169 2130 Application of Water ......................................................173 2131 Application of Calcium Chloride....................................174 Base Construction 2201 Concrete Base .................................................................176 2211 Aggregate Base ...............................................................178 2221 Aggregate Shouldering...................................................187 2231 Bituminous Surface Reconditioning ...............................190 2232 Mill Pavement Surface ...................................................192 Pavement Construction 2301 Concrete Pavement .........................................................195 2321 Road-Mixed Bituminous Surface ...................................235 2355 Bituminous Fog Seal ......................................................243 2356 Bituminous Seal Coat.....................................................244 2357 Bituminous Tack Coat....................................................249 2358 Bituminous Prime Coat ..................................................252 2360 Plant Mixed Asphalt Pavement .....................................254 Bridges and Structures 2401 Concrete Bridge Construction .......................................327 2402 Steel Bridge Construction ...............................................363 2403 Timber Bridge Construction...........................................375 2404 Concrete Wearing Course for Bridges............................382 2405 Prestressed Concrete Beams ...........................................391 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 19 v 2411 Minor Concrete Structures..............................................402 2412 Precast Concrete Box Culverts.......................................404 2422 Crib Walls.......................................................................407 2433 Structure Renovation......................................................409 2442 Removal of Existing Bridges ..........................................413 2451 Structure Excavations and Backfills...............................416 2452 Piling ..............................................................................427 2461 Structural Concrete.........................................................444 2471 Structural Metals ............................................................471 2472 Metal Reinforcement ......................................................492 2478 Organic Zinc-Rich Paint System....................................498 2479 Inorganic Zinc-Rich Paint System..................................510 2481 Waterproofing.................................................................521 Miscellaneous Construction 2501 Pipe Culverts ..................................................................525 2502 Subsurface Drains...........................................................531 2503 Pipe Sewers ....................................................................537 2506 Manholes and Catch Basins............................................541 2511 Riprap.............................................................................548 2512 Gabions and Revet Mattresses ........................................551 2514 Slope Paving ...................................................................555 2520 Lean Mix Backfill...........................................................557 2521 Walks..............................................................................560 2531 Concrete Curbing............................................................564 2533 Concrete Median Barriers...............................................570 2535 Bituminous Curb ............................................................575 2545 Electric Lighting Systems...............................................576 2550 Traffic Management System ..........................................592 2554 Traffic Barriers...............................................................602 2557 Fencing...........................................................................606 2560 Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Signals....................612 2564 Traffic Signs and Devices...............................................615 2565 Traffic Control Signals...................................................635 2571 Plant Installation .............................................................662 2572 Protection and Restoration of Vegetation.......................689 2573 Storm Water Management ..............................................694 2575 Controlling Erosion and Establishing Vegetation...........711 2577 Soil Bioengineered Systems ...........................................738 2581 Removable Preformed Plastic Pavement Marking .........742 2582 Permanent Pavement Markings......................................743 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 20 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on the planning and project development activities related to this project – Project No. 20120100, and for Council to provide feedback on recent project activities including the development and recommendation of a new concept for the proposed interchange. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The following input from Council is desired: • Is further information desired about the two newly developed concepts? • Does Council support changing the preferred option (concept) from the Option 4 – Button Hook Ramps with RABs to the newly developed 6 Leg South RABs option? • Does Council still feel comfortable with continuing Phase 3 project development work (preliminary engineering and environmental assessment)? BACKGROUND: History The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project will provide for the construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. The project also includes pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City. Concept Designs At the June 28, 2010 City Council Study Session, staff discussed with Council the Project Management Team (PMT) findings and recommendation for a preferred concept. At that time, the members of the PMT and staff recommended Option 4, Button Hook Ramps with Roundabouts (RABs), as the preferred concept for the new interchange design (see attachment: Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs). It was agreed that the City’s consultant, SEH, Inc. continue the remaining Phase 3 work (preliminary design and environmental assessment) on the Option 4 concept and public meetings were to be scheduled with area stakeholders to obtain their input on Option 4. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Public Meetings Public meetings were conducted on August 4th and 5th to solicit feed back on the ramp and roundabout configurations respective to their area. The meeting on August 4th engaged area property owners, business owners and residents in the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange and the meeting on August 5th engaged residents of the South Oak Hill Neighborhood located adjacent to the southwest quadrant. Turn out at both meetings was light. Seven people attended the meeting on the 4th and two people attended the meeting on the 5th. At the meetings, staff from the City and SEH, Inc. discussed the design and listened to questions and concerns with regard to refinements of the ramp and roundabout locations and access changes in these two areas. One of the design refinements to the ramp and roundabout configuration in the northeast quadrant is the proposed closure of Republic Avenue at Walker Street due to its close proximity to the roundabout. The business owners in this area who attended the meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the closure. They felt it would be more difficult for customers and delivery vehicles to reach their businesses. With the closure, access to the area would have to shift to Gorham Avenue. No comments were generated from the South Oak Hill Neighborhood notices and meeting. Value Engineering Study During the second week of August, a Value Engineering (VE) Study was conducted by Mn/DOT for the improvements to the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange project. VE studies are required on all federally funded projects in excess of $20 million. The study was facilitated by a national engineering consulting firm, HDR Engineering, Inc. and included several engineers from Mn/DOT with expertise in the various disciplines associated with this project. Members of the study team had little to no prior knowledge of the project except for two city staff members on the team. The goal of the study was to take an independent look at the project and identify possible improvements to the project that may add value. “Value” being defined as a measure which could decrease project cost and/or increase project performance. Examples of ideas that may add value include recommendations on: construction methods, construction materials, construction staging, or a design improvement. The VE study team generated 48 different ideas for the project that were developed into 8 recommendations. One of the recommendations that staff thinks has considerable merit was the introduction of a new interchange concept. The new concept recommended by the study team for consideration is actually a design improvement to the tight diamond interchange concept the PMT identified earlier this year as a final candidate for the preferred option. Consideration of Concepts The new concept recommended by the VE study team is essentially a very tight diamond interchange with a roundabout beneath the bridge which controls the ramp traffic along with roundabouts at Walker and Lake Streets. Based on the VE study team recommendation, the City’s consultant, SEH, Inc. developed two viable alternatives for city consideration (see attachments: New Concept – SPUI with 3 RABs; and, New Concept – 6 Leg South RABs). During the past month, SEH, Inc. and Mn/DOT have been evaluating these two new concepts for fatal flaws. None have been identified and Mn/DOT will support either of the two new concepts as a preferred option. Some of the advantages of the new concepts over Option 4 are: significant reduction in right of way impacts, one less roundabout to construct / maintain / traverse, and improved driver familiarity. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Disadvantages include: increased construction costs (which should be offset by reduced right of way expenses) along with additional street / lane crossings for pedestrians along Louisiana Avenue. Based on a variety of factors, Engineering and Community Development staff recommends pursuing the 6 Leg South RABs concept as the preferred concept. This option meets all the goals of the project and should be more positively received by the public as it minimizes or eliminates the right of way and access concerns associated with Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs. Next Steps Phase 3 work has been on hold for several months now due to the additional effort undertaken this past spring to choose between the Button Hook and Tight Diamond concepts as well as the recent time needed to conduct the VE Study. Direction on a preferred option is necessary at this time to allow Phase 3 work to continue and to prevent further slippage in the overall project schedule. Staff is planning to conduct an area wide public meeting during October to update all stakeholders and interested persons on the proposed project and to solicit feed back on the preferred option. Completion of Phase 3 work is contemplated in the spring of 2011. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated total project costs for Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs at this time are: Total Project Cost (construction, ROW, agreements, design, etc.) Construction $16,500,000 Engineering $ 3,300,000 Right of Way $ 3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $21,800,000 At this time, a detailed estimate for the two new concepts has not been determined. However, it is generally agreed that total project costs will be essentially the same for all three concepts described herein. Right of way costs will likely be less for the two new concepts, compared to Option 4, while construction costs may be higher. Engineering expenses are essentially the same for all options. Funding Sources and Opportunities $7,630,000 in federal funds have been secured through the Met Council’s State Transportation Program Urban Grant solicitation. Staff is continuing efforts to pursue funding through other grants, solicitations and agreements. The 2010 Federal appropriations bill has authorized $600 million for National Infrastructure Investments grants called TIGER II which the City has applied for in the amount of $14,000,000. Staff has also applied for Mn/DOT Municipal Agreement funds in the amount of $594,000. Staff is preparing to apply for funding (up to 50% of the total project cost) under a joint Mn/DOT and Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) solicitation for a Transportation Economic Development Pilot Program expected to be released later this month. This pilot program is designed to address both the state’s transportation system needs and local/regional economic development objectives in promoting job creation. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Subject: Project Update – Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project – 2012-0100 Current funding for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is coming from HRA levy proceeds which have been designated to pay for infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Option 4 – Button Hook with RABs New Concept – SPUI with 3 RABs New Concept – 6 Leg South RABs Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 17 20 1 4CENTERTNR21W 17 117 S E CTI ON965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 1000 +00 1005+00 965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 100 0+00 1005+00 10+0015+0020+0025+0030+0010+00 10+00 10+0045+00 30+00 60+00 65+00 965+00 970+00 975+00 980+00 985+00 990+00 995+00 100 0+00 1005+00 10+0015+0020+0025+0030+0010+00 25+00 13+00 19+00 19+00 22 + 00 23+00 13+00 34+0041+0061+00 64+00 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER SECTION LINE DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 Loui si ana AveRepu blic Ave Walker St Walker St TH 7 W Lake St Loui si ana AveMonitor StTH 7 INTERCHANGE LAYOUT T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. WITH ROUNDABOUTS BUTTON HOOK RAMPS OPTION 4 PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED SHOULDER, PAVED RETAINING WALLS PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER, RAISED MEDIANS PROPOSED CONCRETE BARRIER SECTION LINE DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 5 WB TH 7 EB TH 7 LOUISIANA AVE. WALKER ST. W. LAKE ST. REPUBLIC A VE.LAKE ST. W MONITOR ST. WALKER ST. INTERCHANGE T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 KILMER LN. 4.0 acres Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 6 WB TH 7 EB TH 7 LOUI SI ANA AVE. WALKER ST. W. LAKE ST. REPUBLIC A VE.LAKE ST. W MONITOR ST. WALKER ST. INTERCHANGE T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE. 0 feetscale 50 50 100 25 KILMER LN. 6 Leg South Option Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 Louisiana Ave Interchange Project - 2012-0100 Page 7 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Bidding and Construction / Project Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None - the purpose of this discussion is to obtain Council input on areas of public sector bidding and construction / project management it wishes to discuss at a future study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are there specific topic areas relating to public sector bidding and construction/project management that the City Council wants to make sure are researched and discussed at a future study session? BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting held on September 7, 2010, Council expressed an interest in discussing bidding and construction / project management. Council requested this topic be discussed at a future Study Session. As staff considered this request, questions were raised over what specific areas or topics might be of interest and how to go about this. Rather than assuming the information the Council might want to see at a study session, staff felt it would be more productive to ask. Once Council interest is better determined, staff will be able to present relevant information for discussion. To facilitate Council input, staff has attached “Table of Contents”, web pages, and a Mn/DOT State Aid document which show various bidding and construction / project management topics which could be discussed. Staff is interested in which topics shown on these various documents might be of interest to Council. Staff is also interested in other topics of interest not shown on any of these attachments. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: LMC Handbook – Chapter 23: Expenditures, Purchasing, and Contracts Mn/DOT Web Page – Construction Tools Mn/DOT State Aid - Contract Administration Guidance Document Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction – 2005 Edition Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager PART VI FINANCE, BUDGETING, AND DEBT CHAPTER 23: EXPENDITURES, PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS Expenditures, purchasing, and contracts .................................................................................................................... 3 I. Expenditures .............................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Legal expenditures ..................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Invalid expenditures ................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Limitation on city expenditures ................................................................................................................. 5 II. Procedure for paying claims ...................................................................................................................... 5 A. Filing a declaration of claim ...................................................................................................................... 5 B. Payroll ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 C. Audits and allowances ............................................................................................................................... 7 D. Issuance of order ........................................................................................................................................ 7 E. Prompt payment ......................................................................................................................................... 8 F. Immediate payment of claims .................................................................................................................... 9 G. Independent boards and commissions ........................................................................................................ 9 H. Account-book entry ................................................................................................................................... 9 I. Limits on issuing checks .......................................................................................................................... 10 J. Duplicate checks ...................................................................................................................................... 10 K. Petty cash (imprest funds) ........................................................................................................................ 10 L. Judgments ................................................................................................................................................ 11 M. Home rule charter cities procedure for paying claims ......................................................................... 11 III. Purchasing ................................................................................................................................................ 11 A. General purchasing .................................................................................................................................. 11 B. Making purchases .................................................................................................................................... 15 IV. Selling city property and equipment ........................................................................................................ 17 A. Salvage operations ................................................................................................................................... 17 B. Restricted sales ......................................................................................................................................... 17 C. Sales to other government agencies ......................................................................................................... 17 D. Electronic sales of surplus supplies, material, and equipment ................................................................. 18 V. Contracts in general ................................................................................................................................. 18 VI. Competitive bidding requirements ........................................................................................................... 18 A. General requirements ............................................................................................................................... 19 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 2 B. Local improvements ................................................................................................................................. 19 C. Bidding procedures .................................................................................................................................. 20 D. Best value contracting .............................................................................................................................. 25 E. Exemptions .............................................................................................................................................. 26 VII. Emergency Contracts ............................................................................................................................... 27 A. Cities and other political subdivisions ..................................................................................................... 27 B. Procedures for making an emergency contract under the Emergency Management Act......................... 28 C. Towns (and possibly cities)...................................................................................................................... 28 D. Procedure for making emergency contracts under township authority for emergency contracts ............ 29 E. Local sanitary districts ............................................................................................................................. 29 F. Housing and Redevelopment Authorities (HRAs) ................................................................................... 30 G. Port Authorities ........................................................................................................................................ 30 H. Emergency contracts with a city official .................................................................................................. 30 VIII. Purchasing consultant services ................................................................................................................. 31 A. Engineers and architects........................................................................................................................... 31 B. Registered land surveyor .......................................................................................................................... 33 C. Accountants .............................................................................................................................................. 33 D. Other consultants ..................................................................................................................................... 33 E. Selecting a consultant............................................................................................................................... 33 F. Bidding for consultant services ................................................................................................................ 35 G. Contracting with consultants .................................................................................................................... 35 IX. Construction contracts.............................................................................................................................. 35 X. Retainage.................................................................................................................................................. 38 A. Progress payments ................................................................................................................................... 38 B. Optional method ....................................................................................................................................... 38 XI. Conflict of interest in contracts ................................................................................................................ 39 XII. Contracts with other governmental agencies ........................................................................................... 39 A. Road construction contracts ..................................................................................................................... 39 B. Contracts for other public services ........................................................................................................... 40 XIII. How this chapter applies to home rule charter cities ............................................................................... 40 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 3 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 4 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 5 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 6 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 7 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Table of Contents • Contracting 101 o Pre-Award o Post-Award • Summary of Procedures for Construction of a State Aid Project • Summary of Procedures for Construction of a Federal Aid Project • State Aid Projects • Federal Aid Projects • Project Authority • Construction Reports o Form Requirements o Change in Contract Construction Status o Weekly Construction Diary and Statement of Working Days • Project Diary • Subcontracts • Pre-Construction Conference • Documentation of Pay Items o Method Measurement o Item Record Account o Source Documentation o Plan Quantity Documentation o Standard Plate Items o Vehicular Measure • Payment Provisions, Federal Aid o Fund Encumbrance o Partial Payment Process o Material on Hand Payments o Process for Finals of a Federal Aid Project • Contract Time o Working Day Charges o Contract Time Extensions o Liquidated Damages • Contract Changes o Change Orders o Work Order – Minor Extra Work o Supplemental Agreements o Negotiated Prices o Force Account Work and Forms o Claims • Materials o Schedule of Materials Control o Technical Certification • Materials Certification Process Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 8 • Labor • Equal Employment Opportunity • Links • State Aid Construction Resources Contracting 101 The following questions and answers are intended to provide simple ways to improve and summarize the existing contracting process. Pre-Award 1. What types of contracting courses and resources are available/ • Classes offered by Mn/DOT Training Office. • Plan Reading • Contract Administration 101 • Contract Time • Traffic Control Over view • Inspector 101 • Technician Certification Courses • “Utilities Coordination” class to be offered by Mn/DOT soon. • Mn/DOT’s Construction Tools website has many resources the contractor and agency will benefit from. 2. What are the options for funding? • Information of State Aid funding is available at the State Aid for Local Transportation Website . • The Electronic State Aid Manual, ESAM, is completely updated and redesigned, offers the official guidance, rules, and procedures for state and federal aid transportation projects. • (Steps to secure funding, state aid website?) • (eligibility for partial funding) 3. “Working Days” versus “Completion Date”, which is better? • What is the goal? Pros and cons • How do I calculate working days on the job? • The chapter on contract time should be referenced for information on how to calculate working days on the job, track days and calculate remaining days accurately. • Weekly construction diaries and statement of working days must be submitted on all projects as this is the only record of working day charges. 4. Where can I find information on Special Provisions and Technical Certification Requirements? • Mn/DOT’s Special Provisions website offers technical support on: Special Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 9 Provisions Boiler Plates, Special Provision Format, Proposal Sequence and other topics. • Technical Certification is required for construction and/or materials testing technicians on highway construction projects. • Technical Certification courses, schedules are available on line. 5. What should be considered when developing a schedule? • An accurate schedule is needed at the beginning of the project. • The schedule should be used as a tool and referenced regularly. • All parties should be aware of the schedule from the beginning. • Plan ahead and develop a critical path (mainly utilities). • Property acquisition can be a lengthy process, make sure to plan accordingly • Requires coordination with utilities. 6. Where do I find information on prevailing wage rates that will apply to my project? • Payment of prevailing wage rates is required on projects that use State Aid funds and Federal funds. • The Labor website is a good resource on prevailing wage rates for highway projects. If you have any doubt, contact the MnDOT Labor Compliance Unit for advice. • MN Statutes 177.41 to 177.44 establish wage rate requirements. • Additional information on prevailing wage rates can be found at Mn Department of Labor and Industry. 7. How often should a project be advertised for bids? • Advertising requirements vary depending on type of project and funding. • Confirm requirements with funding agency and your local attorney. • Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (MN Statute 471.345) applies if there are no other requirements. • State Aid and Federal Aid Projects require 3 weekly publications, plus 10 days after the last publication date. See MN Statutes 160.17 for County or Town. • Statutes, Rules and Constitution is available at the SALT Finance website. • Some city charters may contain special local bidding requirements. Post-Award 1. Who should I be communicating with during the project? • The State Aid Construction Practices Specialist is your resource person for construction issues. • Communication is needed with all stakeholders on a regular basis. Conducting a weekly meeting with all parties is recommended. • Keep communications open with all local agencies that are involved or may be impacted by your project. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 10 • Utility companies should be contacted as early as possible and included in weekly and pre-construction meeting. • Any issues encountered should be communicated and resolved in a timely manner. 2. How important is documentation? • Clear and concise documentation of pay items is crucial to all construction projects. • All changes to plans must be documented in a timely manner as they occur. • All issues encountered must be documented. • Poor documentation could result in an incomplete contract or worse, litigation. 3. Do you know your tolerances for workmanship/Specification Enforcement? • The current MnDOT Specification Book. • Contact the specific MnDOT Maplewood Lab specialty office for the type of work encountered, if you have any questions, i.e., Bituminous Office, Concrete Office, etc. • When do I dispute poor workmanship? 4. What are the Materials Testing Requirements? • Mn/DOT’s Schedule of Materials Control outlines the minimum sampling and testing required for most materials used in highway construction. • Material failures should be reported/addressed in a timely manner. • Test methods used should be listed and documented. 5. How should the public be involved in your project? • The public should be notified of project progress on a regular basis. • The public should be notified of detours and traffic management. • An information guide about the public involvement process is available on Mn/DOT’s Public Involvement website. 6. When do I need to coordinate with public utilities? • Utility companies should be contacted as early as possible and included in pre-construction and weekly meetings. • If utilities are within Mn/DOT’s Right-of-Way, a permit is required. • Mn/DOT’s utility policies, guidelines, tools, references, permit forms, coordination letter templates, check lists, etc. are located on Mn/DOT’s website at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/contacts.html 7. How do I find information on erosion control? • Mn/DOT’s Office of Environmental Services, Erosion Control website offers information on how to coordinate with and/or receive approval from the following agencies: Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 11 Watershed Districts, County Commissions and Joint County Ditch Authorities, U.S. Coast Guard, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and NPDES Permits. 8. How do I process work orders/change orders/supplemental agreements during a project? • A “Contract Changes Decision Tree” is MnDOT’s method to assist in deciding what contract change method to use for your situation, as an example. • Review and comply with approval limits as set by the Local Agency. Depending on the Local Agency, the engineer may need approval from the County Board, City Council or other agency prior to authorizing additional encumbrance of funds to the contract. • Change Orders – adjustments or minor Plan changes allowed by Contract Specifications. (Note: Payment for change orders cannot be negotiated): • Normal increase/decrease of contract items. • Unacceptable work • Revision of Method of Measurement. • Waiver of liquidated damages. • Other payments specified in the contract. • Work Orders/Minor Extra Work • Work omitted from the Contract and needed to complete the project as let. • Changes that involve extra work needed to complete the contract as let. • Changes that cost $50,000 or less. • Supplemental Agreements – document: • Design or Contract Specification changes. • Major design or Contract Specification errors/ambiguities. • Extra work valued at $50,000 or more. • Process, payment and example language on change orders, work orders and supplemental agreements can be found at contract changes . 9. What are liquidated damages and how are they used on the project? • Ramifications of waving liquidated damages. • Can’t enforce if not documented throughout. • Contractors could “learn” which agencies typically wave a potential abuse. • If a change or extra is needed, address it when it comes up, not at the last moment. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 12 Summary of Procedures for Construction of a State Aid Project Agency Engineer performs the following: • Hold pre-construction conference with contractors and affected utility owners. Notify the DSAE of the upcoming meeting. • Supervise construction, surveying and provide adequate inspection. Construction inspection shall be performed by Certified Technicians. Field tests shall be performed in accordance with the MnDOT Schedule of Materials Control. Link to web • Report Change of Construction Status, starting, completion and any intermediate date to DSAE. • Review contractor payrolls to ensure compliance with State Prevailing Wage Rate (see 5-892.405). • Submit Weekly Construction Diary to the DSAE. • Submit required EEO documentation to the MnDOT EEO Office. • Submit all Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements to the DSAE for approval prior to the work being performed. Submit State Aid Payment Request Form and itemized final estimate on Contract Projects and Force Account Projects. State Aid Force Account is for work being done Using local forces – city/county employees, railroad employee’s utility company Employees etc. Liquidated damages shall be considered, if appropriate. • Submit documentation of construction Engineering costs if reimbursement is requested. • Submit Certificate of Performance upon final acceptance of project. • More info see 5-892.400 1. State Aid staff performs the following: • DSAE inspects progress during construction and upon completion, recommends final acceptance and final payment to State Aid Finance. • State Aid Finance pays the balance of the project (form tp-00064-01) and construction engineering if requested, then completes records. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 13 June 11, 2008 State Aid Contract Administration Guidance . 7 Summary of Procedures for Construction of a Federal Aid Project Agency Engineer performs the following: • Hold pre-construction conference with contractors and affected utility owners. Notify the DSAE of the upcoming meeting. Require the contractor to post the following Labor Compliance Forms and Posters on a prominently located bulletin board or adjacent to the project; a. Notice to Workers (MnDOT Form 02126-02) b. Notice of Nondiscrimination in Employment (17244) c. Wage Rate Information (Form FHWA 1495) d. Fraud Poster (Form FHWA 1022) e. Federal and State Prevailing wage rates from the contract proposal. f. Equal Employment Opportunity Is the Law poster. • Report Change of Construction Status, starting, completion and any intermediate date to DSAE. • Supervise construction, surveying and provide adequate inspection. Construction inspection shall be performed by Certified Technicians. Field tests shall be performed in accordance with the MnDOT Schedule of Materials Control. • Maintain project documentation thru One Office or any other approved procedures. • Submit Weekly Construction Diary to the DSAE. • Submit required EEO documentation to the MnDOT EEO Office. • Submit all Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements to the DSAE for approval prior to the work being performed. • Submit State Aid Payment Request Form and itemized final estimate on Contract Projects and Force Account Projects. Liquidated damages shall be considered, if appropriate. • Submit documentation of construction Engineering costs if reimbursement is requested. Non-construction charges are eligible for reimbursement. • The Delegated Contract Process (D.C.P.) Checklist details the process of project development, project letting and the construction process. Bid opening and Award of Contract. Federal and State Laws and Rules shall be adhered to in the conduct of State-aid and Federal-aid bid openings. All wage rate, job posting and EEO requirements should be referred to The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity. Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 14 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION 2005 EDITION Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 15 i DIVISION I GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND COVENANTS Page Definitions and Terms 1101 Abbreviations .....................................................................1 1103 Definitions..........................................................................4 Bidding Requirements and Conditions 1201 Prequalification of Bidders ...............................................18 1202 Contents of Proposal Form ...............................................18 1203 Issuance of Proposal Forms ..............................................18 1204 Interpretation of Quantities in Bid Schedule ....................18 1205 Examination of Plans, Specifications, Special Provisions, and Site of Work ...............................19 1206 Preparation of Proposal ....................................................20 1207 Irregular Proposals............................................................21 1208 Proposal Guaranty............................................................22 1209 Delivery of Proposals.......................................................22 1210 Withdrawal or Revision of Proposals ...............................23 1211 Combination or Conditional Proposals .............................23 1212 Public Opening of Proposals ............................................24 1213 Disqualification of Bidders...............................................24 Bidding Requirements and Covenants 1301 Consideration of Proposals ...............................................25 1302 Award of Contract ............................................................25 1303 Cancellation of Award......................................................26 1304 Return of Proposal Guaranty............................................26 1305 Requirement of Contract Bond .........................................26 1306 Execution and Approval of Contract................................26 1307 Failure to Execute Contract ..............................................27 Scope of Work 1401 Intent of Contract..............................................................28 1402 Alteration of the Work and Changed Condition...............29 1403 Extra Work .......................................................................32 1404 Maintenance of Traffic.....................................................33 1405 Use of Materials Found on the Project .............................35 1406 Preservation of Historical Objects ....................................35 1407 Final Cleanup ...................................................................36 1408 Value Engineering Incentive............................................36 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 16 ii Control of Work 1501 Authority of the Engineer .................................................39 1502 Plans and Working Drawings...........................................40 1503 Conformity with Plans and Specifications........................40 1504 Coordination of Plans and Specifications.........................41 1505 Cooperation by Contractors..............................................42 1506 Supervision by Contractor................................................42 1507 Utility Property and Service............................................ 43 1508 Construction Stakes, Lines, and Grades .......................... 45 1509 Authority and Duties of the Project Engineer.................. 46 1510 Authority and Duties of the Inspector ............................. 47 1511 Inspection of Work .......................................................... 47 1512 Unacceptable and Unauthorized Work ............................ 48 1513 Restrictions on Movement of Heavy Loads and Equipment ....................................................................... 49 1514 Maintenance During Construction................................... 50 1515 Control of Haul Roads......................................................50 1516 Acceptance of Work .........................................................51 1517 Claims for Compensation Adjustment ..............................51 Control of Material 1601 Source of Supply and Quality ...........................................55 1602 Natural Material Sources..................................................55 1603 Materials: Specifications, Samples, Tests, and Acceptance.................................................................57 1604 Plant Inspection--Commercial Facility.............................59 1605 Substitute Materials..........................................................61 1606 Storage of Materials .........................................................61 1607 Handling Materials...........................................................62 1608 Unacceptable Materials....................................................62 1609 Department-Furnished Material........................................62 Legal Relations and Responsibility to the Public 1701 Laws to be Observed ........................................................63 1702 Permits, Licenses, and Taxes ............................................63 1703 Patented Devices, Materials, and Processes .....................63 1704 Restoration of Surface Opened by Permit ........................63 1705 Federal-Aid Provisions.....................................................64 1706 Employee Health and Welfare ..........................................64 1707 Public Convenience and Safety........................................65 1708 Railroad-Highway Provisions...........................................65 1709 Navigable Waterways.......................................................71 1710 Traffic Control Devices....................................................72 1711 Use of Explosives .............................................................74 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 17 iii 1712 Protection and Restoration of Property ............................74 1713 Forest Protection...............................................................75 1714 Responsibility for Damage Claims...................................75 1715 Opening Sections of the Project to Traffic .......................76 1716 Contractor's Responsibility for Work...............................77 1717 Air, Land, and Water Pollution.........................................78 1718 Furnishing Right of Way ..................................................83 1719 Personal Liability of Public Officials...............................83 1720 No Waiver of Legal Rights...............................................83 1721 Audits...............................................................................83 Prosecution and Progress 1801 Subletting of Contract.......................................................84 1802 Qualifications of Workers ................................................85 1803 Prosecution of Work .........................................................85 1804 Failure to Maintain Satisfactory Progress .........................88 1805 Methods and Equipment ...................................................88 1806 Determination and Extension of Contract Time ...............89 1807 Failure to Complete the Work on Time............................93 1808 Default and Termination of Contract................................94 1809 Emergency Cancellation of Contract................................95 Measurement and Payment 1901 Measurement of Quantities...............................................97 1902 Scope of Payment ...........................................................103 1903 Compensation for Increased or Decreased Quantities........................................................................103 1904 Extra and Force Account Work......................................104 1905 Elimination of Work .......................................................108 1906 Partial Payments .............................................................109 1907 Payment for Surplus Material.........................................110 1908 Final Payment .................................................................111 1909 Assignment of Payments ................................................112 1910 Cost Escalation...............................................................112 1911 Excess or Insufficient Aggregate Production .................113 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 18 iv DIVISION II CONSTRUCTION DETAILS General 2021 Mobilization ...................................................................115 2031 Field Office and Laboratory ...........................................116 2051 Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads..................122 Grading 2101 Clearing and Grubbing ...................................................127 2102 Pavement Marking Removal ..........................................131 2103 Building Removal ...........................................................133 2104 Removing Pavement and Miscellaneous Structures.......135 2105 Excavation and Embankment .........................................143 2111 Test Rolling ....................................................................164 2112 Subgrade Preparation......................................................166 2118 Aggregate Surfacing.......................................................168 2123 Equipment Rental...........................................................169 2130 Application of Water ......................................................173 2131 Application of Calcium Chloride....................................174 Base Construction 2201 Concrete Base .................................................................176 2211 Aggregate Base ...............................................................178 2221 Aggregate Shouldering...................................................187 2231 Bituminous Surface Reconditioning ...............................190 2232 Mill Pavement Surface ...................................................192 Pavement Construction 2301 Concrete Pavement .........................................................195 2321 Road-Mixed Bituminous Surface ...................................235 2355 Bituminous Fog Seal ......................................................243 2356 Bituminous Seal Coat.....................................................244 2357 Bituminous Tack Coat....................................................249 2358 Bituminous Prime Coat ..................................................252 2360 Plant Mixed Asphalt Pavement .....................................254 Bridges and Structures 2401 Concrete Bridge Construction .......................................327 2402 Steel Bridge Construction ...............................................363 2403 Timber Bridge Construction...........................................375 2404 Concrete Wearing Course for Bridges............................382 2405 Prestressed Concrete Beams ...........................................391 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 19 v 2411 Minor Concrete Structures..............................................402 2412 Precast Concrete Box Culverts.......................................404 2422 Crib Walls.......................................................................407 2433 Structure Renovation......................................................409 2442 Removal of Existing Bridges ..........................................413 2451 Structure Excavations and Backfills...............................416 2452 Piling ..............................................................................427 2461 Structural Concrete.........................................................444 2471 Structural Metals ............................................................471 2472 Metal Reinforcement ......................................................492 2478 Organic Zinc-Rich Paint System....................................498 2479 Inorganic Zinc-Rich Paint System..................................510 2481 Waterproofing.................................................................521 Miscellaneous Construction 2501 Pipe Culverts ..................................................................525 2502 Subsurface Drains...........................................................531 2503 Pipe Sewers ....................................................................537 2506 Manholes and Catch Basins............................................541 2511 Riprap.............................................................................548 2512 Gabions and Revet Mattresses ........................................551 2514 Slope Paving ...................................................................555 2520 Lean Mix Backfill...........................................................557 2521 Walks..............................................................................560 2531 Concrete Curbing............................................................564 2533 Concrete Median Barriers...............................................570 2535 Bituminous Curb ............................................................575 2545 Electric Lighting Systems...............................................576 2550 Traffic Management System ..........................................592 2554 Traffic Barriers...............................................................602 2557 Fencing...........................................................................606 2560 Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Signals....................612 2564 Traffic Signs and Devices...............................................615 2565 Traffic Control Signals...................................................635 2571 Plant Installation .............................................................662 2572 Protection and Restoration of Vegetation.......................689 2573 Storm Water Management ..............................................694 2575 Controlling Erosion and Establishing Vegetation...........711 2577 Soil Bioengineered Systems ...........................................738 2581 Removable Preformed Plastic Pavement Marking .........742 2582 Permanent Pavement Markings......................................743 Special Study Session Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Subject: Bidding and Construction/Project Management Page 20 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 1. Call to Order President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, and Susan Sanger. Commissioners absent: Sue Santa. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of July 19, 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 Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to approve the EDA Vendor Claims. The motion passed 6-0. 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. Second Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Ellipse on Excelsior LLC (Bader Development) EDA Resolution No. 10-13 EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the Council recently approved a Major Amendment to the Final PUD for this project, subject to a condition that the Redeveloper enter into an agreement with the EDA for the use of the property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard for overflow customer parking. He explained that in order to finalize that agreement, the EDA and the Redeveloper have agreed to enter into a Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment, whereby the EDA agrees to grant the Redeveloper a license for the temporary use of the EDA property solely for overflow customer parking purposes. He explained that the use of the EDA property is authorized for a term beginning September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011 for a fee of $3,000 payable to the EDA on or before March 1, 2011. He added that following the initial term, the Redeveloper may request renewal of the license for one or more additional one-month terms up to a maximum of 24 additional months, for a fee of $500 per month; the Redeveloper also has the option to request one or more single-day licenses to use the EDA property, for a fee of $100 per single- day license. He pointed out that the EDA retains the option of discontinuing the license with thirty days written notice to the Redeveloper. Commissioner Mavity expressed her appreciation to staff and the redeveloper for quickly coming to an agreement regarding the use of the EDA property. She stated that the language contained in the Second Amendment repeatedly refers to the use of the EDA property for overflow customer parking purposes related to the grand opening events of the commercial components. She indicated it was her understanding that this overflow customer parking is not limited to any type of grand opening event, and is really intended to provide an opportunity to see how the parking situation resolves itself over time and to see if any parking problems are related to flow issues versus specific grand openings. She requested that Section 4.10(b) be revised to state “The Authority further agrees to grant to the Redeveloper a license for the temporary use of the Authority Property solely for overflow customer parking purposes related to the grand opening events of the commercial components (“Commercial Components”) of the Minimum Improvements (the “Overflow Use”).…” and requested that staff confirm that this suggested amendment accurately reflects the parties’ understanding. Mr. Hunt stated that the suggested amendment accurately reflects the spirit of what was intended with respect to overflow customer parking. Mr. Bader, Bader Development, also confirmed that the suggested amendment accurately reflects the spirit of what was intended with respect to overflow customer parking. Commissioner Mavity also requested clarification regarding the fee to be paid by the Redeveloper. She stated that the staff report indicates the Redeveloper will pay $3,000 for the first year and the Redeveloper may request renewal of the license for one or more additional one month terms up to two years. She asked if the Second Amendment provides an option to the Redeveloper to renew the license on an annual basis, instead of one or more additional one-month terms. She stated that she felt it was important to have the EDA property available for overflow parking for a period up to three years if needed, and EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010 requested that the Second Amendment be revised to state that the Redeveloper can renew the license for an annual fee of $3,000. Mr. Locke stated that the Redeveloper was given a discount for the first year and subsequent one-month renewals will be $500 per month. Commissioner Mavity stated that it will be important to make sure that the City is not unintentionally providing a disincentive to use the EDA property, resulting in traffic flowing into the neighborhood. Commissioner Ross stated that she preferred that the language contained in the Second Amendment remain as is with respect to the term and fees paid to the EDA. She indicated that by the end of the first year, the City can re-examine the parking and if it is determined that the EDA property is being used extensively for overflow parking, the Redeveloper should be encouraged to acquire the EDA property. Commissioner Sanger stated that she was not in favor of the proposed use of this property and expressed concern that the Redeveloper has effectively been given up to three years to use this property. She indicated the original intent was to provide the Redeveloper with a one year term, followed by month to month renewals, and the City has the right to terminate the contract after thirty days notice. She added that the EDA purchased this property with the intent of selling it for other commercial development and there was never any discussion about holding on to the property for three years to accommodate overflow parking. Commissioner Mavity requested that her second proposed amendment regarding the Redeveloper’s annual renewal fee to the EDA following the first year of the contract be withdrawn. President Finkelstein reiterated that the EDA retains the right to cancel this contract upon thirty days notice if there is a willing buyer for the property. It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-13 Approving a Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Ellipse on Excelsior LLC, subject to amending Section 4.10(b) of the Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment, as follows: “The Authority further agrees to grant to the Redeveloper a license for the temporary use of the Authority Property solely for overflow customer parking purposes related to the grand opening events of the commercial components (“Commercial Components”) of the Minimum Improvements (the “Overflow Use”)….” The motion passed 5-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed). 7b. 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification EDA Resolution No. 10-14 Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Heintz, Finance Supervisor. EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010 Mr. Heintz advised that the purpose of the HRA levy is to assist in funding future improvements to infrastructure in redeveloping areas. He stated that possible uses include the City’s share of the grade separated crossing at Highway 7 and Louisiana and possible Highway 100 reconstruction. He explained that the maximum allowable HRA levy is based on a percentage of the previous year’s taxable market value, and for 2011, this percentage is 0.0185% or a maximum HRA levy of $1,028.888. He noted that this amount represents a $14,453 decrease from 2010 as a result of lower taxable market values in the City. It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-14 Authorizing the Proposed Levy of a Special Benefit Levy Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and Approval of a Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. The motion passed 6-0. 7c. Issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Notes – Hoigaard Village Project EDA Resolution No. 10-15 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated the EDA previously issued two taxable TIF Notes for certain public improvements related to the Hoigaard Village project secured by tax increment from Stage 1 and Stage 4 of the project; the TIF Notes may be refinanced with one or more tax exempt notes based on the developer meeting certain requirements. He advised that the developer has recently finalized his business arrangements and has requested that the EDA issue its refunding bonds in the amount of $4,500,000; given that the developer has met the requirements, the EDA’s consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. He noted that the issuance of the obligations requires no cash payments and all costs associated with the note issuance will be paid from the gross proceeds of the tax increment. He added that by refinancing the notes, the interest rate will decrease from 7.25% to current tax-exempt rates and will allow the EDA to pay down the principal and interest more quickly than if they remained taxable. President Finkelstein stated that this refinancing will be good for the future of the City and this entire project. It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 10-15 Providing for the Issuance of Tax Exempt Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 (Hoigaard Village). The motion passed 6-0. 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: September 20, 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 September 4, 2010 through September 17, 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 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:37:22R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 4,232.50AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC 4,232.50 602.60DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN 602.60 13.27DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT 13.27 Report Totals 4,848.37 EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 5a) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 Meeting Date: September 20, 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: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) related to The West End project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to approve the proposed Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) in order to allow the construction of a residential project at the West End? BACKGROUND: On September 7th the City Council approved a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for The Shops at West End allowing a multiple family dwelling in the Office district, subject to conditions. Prior to that, on May 17th, the EDA and City approved a Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment with Duke Realty related to The West End project. Section 4.1 b of that Contract requires either a hotel or multifamily rental housing development with at least 100 units be constructed as Phase IIC of the project. Recently, WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) entered into a purchase agreement with Duke Realty in which it agreed to purchase a one-acre pad site (5310 16th Street West) and construct a 6-story, 120-unit, upscale apartment building on the property. Since WEA, LLC is a separate entity from Duke Realty it is important that Duke’s responsibilities under their Redevelopment Contract with the EDA and City be “assigned” to WEA, LLC for the property in the West End that it is purchasing. The proposed Assignment and Assumption does just that. In addition, under the terms of the Redevelopment Contract with Duke, the EDA/ and City must approve any transfer of Redevelopment Property to a third party. The proposed Resolution of Approval approves the transfer of the subject property to WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group). Proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Duke Realty assigns to WEA, LLC upon closing, its obligations and rights under the Redevelopment Contract pertaining to the Subject Property and Phase IIC of the Contract. Likewise, WEA, LLC accepts the assignment from Duke upon closing, and assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group agreements relating to the Subject Property and Phase IIC to be constructed on the Subject Property, (specifically the construction of multifamily rental housing) that were to be performed by Duke under the Redevelopment Contract. Under Section 8.2 (b) of the Contract, any time the Redeveloper seeks to sell any portion of the Redevelopment Property, it must satisfy certain conditions in order to proceed with such a Transfer. If the Redeveloper and its Assignee have successfully satisfied those conditions and have met all the requirements for a property transfer under the Contract and the Assignment is acceptable to the EDA then approval of the Transfer by the EDA cannot be unreasonably withheld and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under the Contract, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred Any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from any portion of its obligations under the Contract requires formal approval by both the EDA and City Council. A companion staff report and resolution approving the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement is also included on the City Council’s Consent Agenda. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed and revised the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement and recommends its approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, WEA, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Duke Realty under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the subject property and Phase IIC. All costs associated with the Agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are paid by Duke Realty. VISION CONSIDERATION: The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation. Attachments: • Resolution approving Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC • Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC 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 September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-_______ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WEA, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Authority is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District. 1.03. The Redeveloper proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract to WEA, LLC (the “Assignee”), on which portion the Assignee intends to construct a multifamily rental housing facility (which development and related property is referred to in the Contract as Phase IIC). 1.04. In connection with such conveyance, Redeveloper seeks to assign certain obligations of Redeveloper related to Phase IIC to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.05. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the Authority’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent, Estoppel and Agreement of the Authority related thereto, 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 consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority September 20, 2010 Executive Director President Attest Secretary EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ____ day of __________, 2010, is made and entered into by and between Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Assignor”), and WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor is the Redeveloper under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Redevelopment Contract”), by and among Assignor, as Redeveloper, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, The Shops at West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 6, 2010, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property is a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, Phase IIC to be constructed on the Subject Property, and construction of multifamily rental housing on the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of an Assessment Agreement with respect to the Subject Property (collectively the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is duly authorized to transact business within the State of Minnesota, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Section 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (c) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to construction of Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (d) Sections 4.2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and Sections 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, all to the extent such covenants relate to construction of Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (e) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (f) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (f) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (g) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of Phase IIC as contemplated in Section 8.2(f); EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group (i) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (j) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Without limiting the generality of the immediately preceding sentence, it is specifically understood and agreed that Assignee shall have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the construction of, or payment of the costs of constructing, the Redeveloper Public Improvements, or the payment of the Other Public Redevelopment Costs. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: WEA, LLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4010 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Principal With copy to: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34103; or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. [Signature pages follow] EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, its General Partner By:_________________________ Pat Mascia, Senior Vice President STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2010, by Pat Mascia, the Senior Vice President of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, as General Partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Public EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ASSIGNEE: WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By:_________________________ Christopher Culp, Principal STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2010, by Christopher Culp, Principal of WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34103 EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 11 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 12 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group WEA, LLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4010 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Principal With copy to: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34103; or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 13 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of _________________, 2010. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _______________, 2010, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public EDA Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 14 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ________________, 2010, by Phil Finkelstein and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Councilmember Sue Santa. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Payroll Week Proclamation Mayor Jacobs recited the Proclamation designating September 5-11, 2010 Payroll Week. Terry Meggitt, past President of the Northstar Chapter of the American Payroll Association, stated that the American Payroll Association serves to educate payroll professionals and help them understand the various tax laws. He indicated that one opportunity the Association would like to pursue is educating the City’s youth regarding their paychecks; the Association has a national program called “Money Matters” that has been used for this purpose. Mr. Harmening introduced Tricia Wegner-Koense, the City’s Payroll Specialist, and asked that the City Council recognize her efforts, along with Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator. Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to Ms. Wegner-Koense and Ms. Fosse. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of August 9, 2010 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the third sentence of the first paragraph under “2011 Budget Discussion” on page 1 be revised to state “He stated that the combined preliminary General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund budget reflects a 1.6% increase from 2010 to 2011 and that even with a 1.6% increase in the budget, most people would see a decrease in their City property tax.” Councilmember Mavity requested that the third full paragraph on page 2 be revised to state “Councilmember Mavity asked if there will be other G.O. bond requirements through 2020 that are not currently outlined in the debt service levy requirements and expressed concern that there may be other projects in the future requiring bond issuance. She also expressed concern that some of the future projects that require bonding are not reflected in the budget.” The minutes were approved as amended. 3b. City Council Minutes of August 16, 2010 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Study Session Minutes of August 23, 2010 Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the second paragraph on page 3 be revised by adding “He pointed out that at this point in time, given the City’s finances, it is not clear that there is a need for a community center building and it is also not clear what needs are not currently being met.” Councilmember Sanger requested that the fourth sentence in the first paragraph on page 3 be revised to state “She stated it will be important to differentiate between the need and desire for recreational facility space versus what residents want, e.g., upgrading existing recreational facilities versus adding facilities or amenities that do not already exist in St. Louis Park. 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 Resolution No. 10-086 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 7430 North Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20-117-21- 21-0052. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-087 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 5736 - 25½ Street West, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 09- 117-21-24-0048. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 4c. Removed from Consent and placed on regular Agenda as Item 8e. (Designating Global Specialty Contractors the lowest responsible bidder for the West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600.) 4d. Approve an Encroachment Agreement at 1600 West End Boulevard (Rojo) for Temporary Private Use of Public Land for outdoor dining and Approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Rojo West End, LLC, dba Rojo Mexican Grill, 1602 West End Boulevard. 4e. Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for the 2010-2011 Winter Season. 4f. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish, 4017 Utica Avenue South, for their Fall Celebration Event to be held September 11, 2010. 4g. Removed from Consent and placed on regular Agenda as Item 8f. (Resolution approving designation of nonconservation land shown on Classification List “1528 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the property at 2944 Brunswick Ave South and approving acquisition) 4h. Approve a one-year extension for the filing of the plat of METROPOINT. 4i. Approve a one-year extension for the Sam’s Club Fuel Station CUP for excavation. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 10-088 approving the EDA’s issuance of Tax Exempt TIF Refunding Bonds (Series 2010) related to Hoigaard Village. 4k. Adopt Resolution No. 10-089 electing to continue participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and agree to the affordable and life-cycle housing goals as determined by the Metropolitan Council for calendar years 2011 – 2020. 4l. Reappoint Isabella Stewart as a Youth Commissioner to the Human Rights Commission for the term ending August 31, 2011. 4m. Accept for Filing Vendor Claims for the period August 14, 2010 through September 3, 2010. 4n. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2010. Mr. Harmening advised that the City received a request today from the applicant in item 8b to again postpone Council action on its request for a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow the applicant time to continue to work on its application. He also advised that Councilmember Omodt has requested that Consent Calendar items 4c and 4g be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Regular Agenda. Councilmember Mavity requested that item 8b (Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service) be removed from the regular agenda. She stated that Dairy Queen is working hard to address all of the City’s concerns and pointed out that the applicant’s request to postpone Council action was received at the last minute. She acknowledged that there are many residents paying attention to this issue and who are ready each time this item is put on the agenda. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the Agenda as amended to remove item 8b, and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent Calendar items 4c and 4g to the regular agenda as items 8e and 8f; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing and First Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments Ms Stroth presented the staff report and stated that the proposed amendments to Chapter 15 include an increase to 1.25% of the local gambling tax to cover certain administrative expenses related to charitable gambling and adding a requirement that charitable gambling organizations contribute to a 10% Contribution Fund with an exemption for those organizations that expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City. She noted that additional language has been added to clarify that organizations with more than one site must report their distribution of gambling proceeds from each site separately. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Stump, sitting Commander of the St. Louis Park Legion, requested that the City Council further study this issue and not take action this evening. He stated that the Legion is the last veteran’s organization in St. Louis Park and any increase in the local gambling tax will have an impact on the City’s veterans. He stated if the tax is approved, he asked that the City Council consider a special exemption for the Legion. Councilmember Omodt stated his preference would be to take this matter back to study session to ensure that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the ordinance amendments. He indicated the Council’s intent was to keep as much funding as possible in the City for the various nonprofit organizations. Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the proposed amendments accurately represent the Council’s direction and encouraged the Council to take action on the first reading. She indicated that there are many worthwhile nonprofits in the community and she does not want the Council to be in a position of having to determine who gets a special exemption. Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Omodt and stated she would like more information about how other organizations work and how their charitable gambling operations may be impacted by the amendments. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Councilmember Finkelstein stated that when the Council initially discussed the proposed amendments, the Council wanted to make sure the City’s administrative expenses were being covered as well as to have an understanding of where charitable gambling proceeds were being spent. He acknowledged that full consideration may not have been given to the impact the amendments would have on the veteran’s organizations. He stated that he was in favor of continuing this matter for further discussion by the Council. Mr. Stump stated that the Legion currently gives 74% of all donations to St. Louis Park charities and 26% of all donations to primary veteran’s organizations. He presented the Council with a list of all donations provided by the Legion. Mr. Bill MacMillan, 1800 Louisiana Avenue South, stated that the Legion is currently the only nonprofit that runs charitable gambling in the City. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about any for-profit restaurant or bar using the charitable gambling as a way to subsidize its business operations. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to defer action and bring the issue back to Council at a Study Session in September. Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council can discuss this matter further in study session and defer the first reading, or the Council can pass the first reading tonight and hold its study session discussion between the first and second readings. Councilmember Mavity stated her preference would be to pass the first reading and then have a study session discussion prior to the second reading. She indicated that if the City receives a new request for a charitable gambling license, the City will be ready with whatever amendments are finally adopted by the Council. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Mavity. Councilmember Omodt reiterated his request to bring the issue back to study session for discussion by the entire Council. Mr. Scott advised that the Council can make revisions to the ordinance between the time of the first and second readings. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the approval or denial of a new charitable gambling license could be delayed if the first reading is not passed this evening. Mr. Scott replied that the timeline for approval of a premises permit is fairly open. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Ms. Stroth added that the City likely has more than sixty days to take action on a new premises permit application. She pointed out that the City no longer takes action on premises permit renewals. Mayor Jacobs called for a roll call vote: Councilmember Omodt: aye Councilmember Ross: aye Councilmember Finkelstein: aye Councilmember Mavity: nay Councilmember Sanger: nay Mayor Jacobs: aye The motion passed 4-2. Mayor Jacobs requested that this item be placed on the study session agenda as soon as possible. He stated there appears to be some consensus that the City should consider granting an exemption to organizations that operate a nonprofit premise. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. West End PUD Major Amendment and Shadow Variance Resolution No. 10-093 and 10-094 Mr. Walther presented the staff report and stated that the Final PUD approved for the site included a hotel pad site on 16th Street and this approval anticipated a variance would be required due to shadowing requirements. He advised that the applicant is proposing to change the hotel pad site use to a multiple family residential six story building with 120 apartments with structured parking. He presented the site plan and proposed parking for the site, and noted that because the proposed use is located in an office district, a PUD modification is being requested for density of 112.6 units/acre and a floor area ratio of 3.9. He discussed the shadow rules wherein the City sets a daily limit in the Code that cannot be exceeded for more than 60 days per year; the shadow study indicates there will be 123 days where the project shades exceeds the daily limit. He reviewed staff’s variance analysis. He noted the City’s shadow rules do not apply to buildings within the same PUD. The purpose of a PUD is to develop in a coordinated fashion. Although the Hilton Homewood Suites was built under a separate PUD; in this case, the City and Duke Realty were in the planning stages for the Shops at West End and the Hilton was aware of this project and it has been developed in a coordinated fashion. He added that the hotel owner and the developer provided a letter of support for the variance 8 months before the hotel even started construction. He then introduced Christopher Culp from Excelsior Group. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Councilmember Sanger asked how many of the apartments would be one bedroom and two bedroom units. Mr. Culp stated they anticipate that approximately 50% of the units will be one bedroom, approximately 40% of the units will be two bedrooms, and approximately 10% of the units will be studio apartments. Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding tandem parking and asked if people who live in different apartments will have to share tandem space. She expressed concern about creating a situation where people end up parking in the Rainbow lot and crowding the parking in that lot. Mr. Culp replied that only residents living in the same unit will be assigned tandem parking spaces. He added that they have worked with Duke to alleviate this concern and Duke has agreed to provide hang tags to residents so that they will be allowed to park in the Moneygram office tower parking ramp from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 a.m. and anytime on weekends and holidays. Councilmember Sanger asked how the recent Supreme Court decision on variances affects the City Council’s decision on the shadow variance. Mr. Scott advised that the City Council can approve the variance in this case due to the unique circumstance of the prior PUD approval. He explained that the Supreme Court case says you can only grant a variance if, but for granting of the variance, the property owner would not have reasonable use of the property; in this case, the property owner would be limited to a two-story building and there is a good argument under the context of the prior PUD approval that a tall building was intended under the PUD, i.e., a hotel, and the shadow issue was addressed in the context of the regulations. He stated that the argument in this case, the limitation of a two-story building, would not be a reasonable use of the property. Councilmember Ross expressed concern about the parking and traffic flow in the area and stated that parking is an ongoing issue at Rainbow and the restaurant parking is taken up in the Rainbow lot. She requested information regarding how traffic will flow in the area, as well as how the guest parking and extended parking will work. She also expressed concern regarding the driveway that goes between Rainbow and the proposed site because it tends to get very crowded. Councilmember Omodt noted that Rainbow has recently re-signed their lot and has posted “no restaurant parking” signs in their lot, which has eased the parking burden. Mr. Culp advised that he hopes to offer the residents a better alternative than parking in the Rainbow parking lot and felt this will be accomplished with the underground as well as covered parking. He stated that a single driveway will be used by all residents to the 71 grade level parking spaces off 16th Street; is drivers continue on 16th Street, they will approach the ramp and proceed to the 99 underground parking spaces. He added the City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 AUAR update suggested that traffic with this use is slightly less than expected with a hotel use. Mr. Walther noted that the original PUD approval included a hotel drop-off location that would connect 16th Street to the Rainbow driveway; the proposed use is far superior in terms of controlling traffic and speeds and maintaining the safety of that intersection. He added that staff is working with SRF Consulting regarding this intersection to determine what would be appropriate in this area for changes or improvements. Councilmember Mavity expressed her support for this project and requested further information regarding the DORA requirements. Mr. Walther stated that the Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) requirements are meant to define exactly what is expected of outdoor spaces on these types of projects. He indicated this project is a good example of showing a good mix of passive and active people spaces on the project. He stated that in most districts, 12% of the land area is required to be DORA; the Office District is peculiar because it allows for DORA to be provided off-site and it requires more DORA than other districts for high density developments anticipates higher density with a minimum of 12% of the land area or 12% of the building area, whichever is greater. He explained that in this case, the building area is the guiding rule. The City Code allows the development to provide the required DORA outside of the actual space where the development is occurring, i.e., this development uses a small portion of the people spaces which were already developed as part of the Shops at West End. He added that overall, the Shops at West End provided 15% DORA based on building area and this project provides 9-10% on site and 2-2.5% on other property. He pointed out that DORA cannot be double counted. Ms. McMonigal provided a comparison by stating if this project were in an R-4 zoning district, it would have to provide approximately 5,600 square feet of DORA; this project is providing 12,000 square feet of DORA on-site. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 10-093 Amending and Restating Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, and 09-064 Relating to a Final Planned Unit Development for the West End Redevelopment Project Located at the Southwest Quadrant of Interstate 394 and Highway 100. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 10-094 Granting a Variance from Section 36-366(B)(1)G. of the Ordinance Code Relating to Building Design to Permit a Planned Unit Development Exceeding the Shadow Regulations for Property Located in the Office Zoning District at 5310 16th Street West. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 The motion passed 6-0. Councilmember Sanger noted that the Council is supportive of this project because it fits well in the context of the overall West End project; however, this kind of dense use with little outdoor green space would be troublesome in most other parts of the City. 8b. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service This item was removed from the agenda. 8c. Adoption of the 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Budgets, 2011 Preliminary City and HRA Property Tax Levies Resolution No. 10-090 and 10-091 Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration. He stated that based on earlier discussions with the Council, the 2011 General Fund and Park and Recreation budgets have been prepared under the premise of holding the line on operating expenditures and to continue to reinvest in the City’s infrastructure. He explained that the 2011 loss of approximately $667,000 of market value homestead credit (MVHC) has been reflected in the preliminary budget and following discussions with the Council, the 2011 budget proposes a maximum levy increase of 4.88%, which equates to approximately $1.1 million. He noted that 2.82% of this amount relates to operations and the remaining 2.60% will go toward infrastructure improvements. He pointed out that even with this levy increase, most property owners will see a reduction in the City portion of their 2011 taxes. He indicated that the Council’s policy decisions in the past related to promoting redevelopment in the City have resulted in several TIF districts coming back on line and all that value is now being made available to soak up property tax increases. He asked the Council to acknowledge staff’s efforts in preparing a balanced budget. Mr. Swanson presented an overview of the 2011 preliminary budget and property tax levy and reiterated that the City will not receive MVHC in 2011; the City also does not receive LGA, which means that the City’s share of property taxes is slightly higher than other cities who receive these funds. He added that 65% of the City’s revenue is from property taxes. Councilmember Finkelstein pointed out that at one time the City was receiving $1.2 million in LGA and those monies were cut six years ago and the City has had to make up the difference. Mr. Swanson stated that 2011 budget expenditures show a 1.6% increase over 2010, with the most significant increase in public safety. He indicated the budget proposes to continue to invest in public safety with an overall increase of 2.4% over the 2010 adopted budget. He presented an overview of 2011 personnel versus non-personnel expenditures and indicated that personnel-related costs for the General Fund represent approximately 79% of the total budget, or approximately $18 million and the Park and Recreation Fund’s personnel costs City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 10 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 are 57% out of an approximate $6 million budget. He then reviewed the 2010-2011 tax levy allocation, noting that a 4.8% increase equates to an approximate $1 million increase over 2010. He reviewed the tax levy allocation and stated the capital replacement fund includes a significant increase; this increase is based on the City’s long range financial management plan which seeks long term sustainability of the funds. He noted that the City had some bonds retired in 2010 and 2009 which allowed for a significant decrease in the City’s debt service and allows the City to reallocate those funds into the capital replacement fund. He then reviewed the City tax implications for 2011 based on a preliminary levy increase of 4.88% which shows a decrease in the City tax for a majority of properties owners. He advised that the City Council will hold additional study session meetings to discuss the budget, utility rates, and capital items through November, with final budget and tax levy approval occurring in December. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 10-090 Approving 2011 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Budgets, 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Public Hearing Date for the 2011 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy and adopt Resolution No. 10-091 Authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2011. The motion passed 6-0. Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to staff for their efforts in preparing a balanced budget. 8d. Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700 Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that the City entered into a contract with Ames Construction last fall for the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange project; Ames Construction was the lowest responsible bidder for this approximate $11.5 million project. He stated that the total estimated cost for this project was approximately $16.3 million. He explained that Ames recently informed the City it was making a claim for approximately $1.6 million for costs they would experience due to utility construction delays relating to private utility companies; staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the claim with various Mn/DOT staff and they have indicated the claim by Ames has merit and recommended we negotiate a settlement. He indicated that staff has been working on a settlement with Ames and based upon the totality of the circumstances associated with the claim, the City has entertained a settlement with Ames in the amount of $400,000, with $200,000 provided as base compensation for delays and $200,000 as incentive pay for substantial completion by November 19, 2010. He added that the City’s share of the settlement would be $60,000, with Mn/DOT contributing $20,000 and $320,000 coming from Federal stimulus monies. He noted that this amount is within the $658,000 contingency budget for the project. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 11 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Councilmember Sanger stated that she would not support this settlement and indicated she was not convinced that there is any legal liability for the City in this claim. She stated she also does not agree with the timing of the settlement where the claim is settled in the middle of a contract. She added that while she understands the practical reality of settling, this is a $400,000 settlement, it is all taxpayer money, and it is not a proper use of taxpayer money. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the City can settle for $60,000 or risk being sued for well over $500,000. He indicated the City has been informed by the City Attorney that the settlement is not covered by insurance, and the City has also been informed by Mn/DOT, who is administering the project on the City’s behalf as its agent, that the claim should be settled, and Mn/DOT has offered to pay $20,000 toward that settlement. He felt that the City should follow its role and be good stewards of taxpayer money and pay $60,000 to settle this claim. He added that he is not happy with Ames and whether the City settles this claim or not, there is nothing to prevent Ames from doing something further in this regard. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Contract No. 119-09, Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700. Councilmember Omodt stated that it is wrong to assume that anyone who votes against this settlement is not a good steward of taxpayer money. He indicated that Ames was asking for up to $4 million and he questioned Ames’ motives in bidding the project low and now coming back and asking for additional money. He stated he did not feel the City should pay the contractor an incentive to settle its claim. He added that Ames and/or Mn/DOT should have recognized early on that there were problems with the utilities. He asked the Council to consider a broader study session discussion regarding alternative dispute resolution in future projects. Councilmember Mavity agreed with the concerns expressed by the Council and stated that staff feels the proposed settlement is appropriate and the settlement reduces further exposure of the taxpayers. Councilmember Ross stated that she agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein that this claim should be settled now rather than further tying up the project and incurring additional legal expenses. She agreed that the City needs to review its bidding process and how to approach the bidding process in the future. Mayor Jacobs stated that nobody is happy about this, but on balance, the City is trying to be good stewards of taxpayer money and there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Council or City staff. He stated that given the circumstances and based on advice from the City Attorney and the engineers, the City should pay this and move on. He agreed that the Council needs to have a discussion about how to prevent this from happening again and how to protect the City. The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Sanger and Omodt opposed). City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 12 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 8e. Designate Global Specialty Contractors the Lowest Responsible Bidder and Authorize Execution of a Contract with the Firm in the Amount of $181,965.77 for the West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600 Councilmember Omodt stated that he requested the removal of this item from the consent calendar based on the discussion regarding the settlement with Ames. He indicated the engineer’s estimate for this project was $177,000 and the lowest bid was $4,000 more than the engineer’s estimate, while the other bids were considerably higher. He expressed concern about this contractor’s ability to complete the project for the bid amount, and questioned whether this contractor purposely bid the project low only to come back later with extensive change orders. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what authority the Council has to reject the lowest bidder if there are concerns by the Council regarding the bid and/or the contractor’s experience. Mayor Jacobs discouraged the Council from micromanaging construction projects and stated the Council’s job is to make sure a bidder is responsible and that their bids are accurate. He added that staff does a good job of vetting out contractors. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to Designate Global Specialty Contractors the Lowest Responsible Bidder and Authorize Execution of a Contract with the Firm in the Amount of $181,965.77 for the West 36th Street Streetscape Bridge Enhancement - Project No. 2010-2600. The motion passed 6-0. 8f. Adopt Resolution Approving Designation of Nonconservation Land Shown on Classification List “1528 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County for the Property at 2944 Brunswick Ave South and Approving Acquisition of Property for $87,915.00. Resolution No. 10-092 Councilmember Omodt stated that he requested this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar in order to formally recognize the City’s affordable housing programs. He added that an article will be published soon regarding affordable housing in St. Louis Park and this property is a good example of the City’s efforts in this regard. Mr. Locke stated that the City has worked with the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust to occasionally acquire homes that then get remodeled and resold to people as affordable housing. He indicated that one of the ways these homes are made affordable is that the Land Trust continues to hold title to the land, selling only the house to the buyer with a 99 year land lease. He added the City has done several of these projects in the past. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 13 Subject: City Council Minutes September 7, 2010 Councilmember Omodt stated that this is important work and represents a good news story for the City. He complimented staff for their efforts on the City’s affordable housing programs. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 10-092 Approving Designation of Nonconservation Land Shown on Classification List “1528 C/NC” by Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County. The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the waffle dinner at the Lenox Center on Friday, September 24th beginning at 4:30 p.m. and that tickets are available and include a designated time for dinner. Councilmember Sanger reminded residents of the St. Louis Park Historical Society’s Ice Cream Social on Saturday, September 18th, at the Depot from 1:00-4:00 p.m. Councilmember Omodt stated that Darrin James Salon will be hosting an event on Saturday, September 11th, from 9:00-5:00 p.m. and all proceeds will go to the Wounded Warrior Project. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So., St. Louis Park, MN 55426 - P.I.D. 17-117-21-33-0087. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Michael and Jillian Newkirk, owners of the single family residence at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So., St. Louis Park, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $2,800.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave So RESOLUTION NO. 10-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT 3740 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. SO., ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 17-117-21-33-0087 WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So., St. Louis Park, have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single family residence located at 3740 Pennsylvania Ave. So., and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the water service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,800.00. 4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %. 6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 20, 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: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 4240 Utica Ave. So. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 4240 Utica Ave. So., St. Louis Park, MN, 55416 – P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0208. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Sean and Ruth Crego, owners of the single family residence at 4240 Utica Ave. So. have requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $6,000.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4240 Utica Avenue South RESOLUTION NO. 10-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 4240 UTICA AVE SO., ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0208 WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 4240 Utica Ave. So., have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 4240 Utica Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $6,000.00. 4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%. 6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 20, 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: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) related to The West End project. This is a companion staff report to the EDA action earlier this evening on the same topic. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) in order to allow the construction of a residential project at the West End? BACKGROUND: On September 7th the City Council approved a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for The Shops at West End allowing a multiple family dwelling in the Office district, subject to conditions. Prior to that, on May 17th, the EDA and City approved a Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment with Duke Realty related to The West End project. Section 4.1 b of that Contract requires either a hotel or multifamily rental housing development with at least 100 units be constructed as Phase IIC of the project. Recently, WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group) entered into a purchase agreement with Duke Realty in which it agreed to purchase a one-acre pad site (5310 16th Street West) and construct a 6-story, 120-unit, upscale apartment building on the property. Since WEA, LLC is a separate entity from Duke Realty it is important that Duke’s responsibilities under their Redevelopment Contract with the EDA and City be “assigned” to WEA, LLC for the property in the West End that it is purchasing. The proposed Assignment and Assumption does just that. In addition, under the terms of the Redevelopment Contract with Duke, the EDA/ and City must approve any transfer of Redevelopment Property to a third party. The proposed Resolution of Approval approves the transfer of the subject property to WEA, LLC (The Excelsior Group). Proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Duke Realty assigns to WEA, LLC upon closing, its obligations and rights under the Redevelopment Contract pertaining to the Subject City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group Property and Phase IIC of the Contract. Likewise, WEA, LLC accepts the assignment from Duke upon closing, and assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to the Subject Property and Phase IIC to be constructed on the Subject Property, (specifically the construction of multifamily rental housing) that were to be performed by Duke under the Redevelopment Contract. Under Section 8.2 (b) of the Contract, any time the Redeveloper seeks to sell any portion of the Redevelopment Property, it must satisfy certain conditions in order to proceed with such a Transfer. If the Redeveloper and its Assignee have successfully satisfied those conditions and have met all the requirements for a property transfer under the Contract and the Assignment is acceptable to the EDA then approval of the Transfer by the EDA cannot be unreasonably withheld and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under the Contract, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred Any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from any portion of its obligations under the Contract requires formal approval by both the EDA and City Council. A companion staff report and resolution approving the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement is also included on the City Council’s Consent Agenda. The EDA’s legal counsel has reviewed and revised the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement and recommends its approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, WEA, LLC assumes the financial obligations that were to be incurred by Duke Realty under the Redevelopment Contract as it pertains to the subject property and Phase IIC. All costs associated with the Agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are paid by Duke Realty. VISION CONSIDERATION: The West End project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation. Attachments: • Resolution approving Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC • Assignment and Assumption of the Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. 10-______ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND WEA, LLC BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis, Minnesota ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) is currently administering its Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Project") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and within the Project has established The West End Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”). 1.02. The Authority, the City and Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment Dated as of May 17, 2010 (the “Contract”), regarding redevelopment of a portion of the property within the TIF District. 1.03. The Redeveloper proposes to convey a portion of the property that is the subject of the Contract to WEA, LLC (the “Assignee”), on which portion the Assignee intends to construct a multifamily rental housing facility (which development and related property is referred to in the Contract as Phase IIC). 1.04. In connection with such conveyance, Redeveloper seeks to assign certain obligations of Redeveloper related to Phase IIC to the Assignee, and the Assignee agrees to accept such obligations, all pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Redeveloper and Assignee (the “Assignment”). 1.05. The Council has reviewed the Assignment and finds that the approval and execution of the City’s consent thereto are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. City Approval; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Assignment, including the attached Consent, Estoppel and Agreement of the City related thereto, as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the consent to the Assignment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City, the Consent, Estoppel and Agreement attached to the Assignment and any other documents requiring execution by the City in order to carry out the transaction described in the Assignment. 2.03. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest City Clerk City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Agreement”) dated as of the ____ day of __________, 2010, is made and entered into by and between Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Assignor”), and WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Assignee”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Assignor is the Redeveloper under that certain Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment dated May 17, 2010 (the “Redevelopment Contract”), by and among Assignor, as Redeveloper, the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, Assignor is contemporaneously herewith conveying certain real property, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, The Shops at West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Subject Property”), to Assignee pursuant to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 6, 2010, as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and between Assignor and Assignee; and WHEREAS, title to the Subject Property (and other property owned by Assignor) is subject to and encumbered by the Redevelopment Contract, and the Subject Property is a portion of the real property defined as the Redevelopment Property under the Redevelopment Contract; and WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign certain of its obligations, rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract to Assignee as of the date on which title to the Subject Property is vested in Assignee (the “Transfer Date”), and Assignee desires to accept the assignment thereof and assume certain of Assignor’s obligations under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, all as more particularly hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements contained herein, Assignor and Assignee hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Any capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Redevelopment Contract. 2. As of the Transfer Date, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee the Assumed Obligations (as defined in Section 4 below), and all of Assignor’s rights and interest in, to and under the Redevelopment Contract relating or pertaining to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property. 3. Assignor hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignee, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, members, managers and officers (collectively the “Assignee Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignee Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all cost, liability, loss, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, “Losses and Liabilities”), arising out of or in any way related to a failure by City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 6 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group Assignor, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignor, its successors or assigns under, any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract prior to or after the Transfer Date, except for the Assumed Obligations (as hereinafter defined). 4. Assignee, as of the Transfer Date, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment, and, except as hereinafter expressly provided, assumes and agrees to keep and perform all of the covenants, obligations and agreements relating to, and to the extent applicable to, the Subject Property, Phase IIC to be constructed on the Subject Property, and construction of multifamily rental housing on the Subject Property, and to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract from and after the Transfer Date, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of an Assessment Agreement with respect to the Subject Property (collectively the “Assumed Obligations”). More specifically, Assignor and Assignee agree that the Assumed Obligations consist of the following (and only the following): (a) Section 2.2(b),(c), (d) and (f) to the extent such representations and warranties relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; further, Assignee expressly represents, for the benefit of the Authority, that it is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State of Minnesota, is duly authorized to transact business within the State of Minnesota, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its governing body; (b) Section 3.2, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (c) Sections 4.1(b) (c), and (d), clauses (1), (7), (8) and (9), all to the extent such covenants relate to construction of Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (d) Sections 4.2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and Sections 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8, all to the extent such covenants relate to construction of Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (e) Article V, to the extent such insurance covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing; (f) Article VI, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (f) Sections 7.1 and 7.2(a) to the extent such financing covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; (g) Article VIII, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; provided that the parties agree and understand that this Assignment effectuates the Transfer of Phase IIC as contemplated in Section 8.2(f); City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 7 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group (i) Article IX, to the extent related to an Event of Default by Assignee in connection with any of the Assumed Obligations; and (j) Article X, to the extent such covenants relate to Phase IIC as multifamily housing and the Subject Property; and provided that the notice address for Assignee for purposes of Section 10.5 is as provided in Section 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else to the contrary contained herein or in the Redevelopment Contract, Assignor and Assignee agree that Assignee is not hereby assuming or agreeing to keep and perform any of the covenants, obligations and agreements to be kept and performed by the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract other than the Assumed Obligations. Without limiting the generality of the immediately preceding sentence, it is specifically understood and agreed that Assignee shall have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the construction of, or payment of the costs of constructing, the Redeveloper Public Improvements, or the payment of the Other Public Redevelopment Costs. Assignee hereby agrees to indemnify and defend Assignor, its successors and assigns, and its and their employees, agents, partners and officers (collectively the “Assignor Indemnified Parties”) against, and hold the Assignor Indemnified Parties harmless from, any and all Losses and Liabilities arising out of or in any way related to a failure by Assignee, its successors or assigns to keep and perform, or a default by Assignee, its successors or assigns under, any of the Assumed Obligations. 5. Assignor hereby warrants and represents to Assignee as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (b) To Assignor's knowledge, there is no Event of Default in existence under the Redevelopment Contract, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. 6. Assignor will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee thereunder or the Assumed Obligations unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. Assignor will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Assignor reserves the right to enter into any modification and amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, and further, Assignor reserves the right to partially terminate the Redevelopment Contract, to the extent such partial termination would not adversely affect the rights and interest of Assignee with respect to the Assumed Obligations, without Assignee’s consent. 7. Assignor shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignor gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignee under City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 8 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, to Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to Assignee as follows: WEA, LLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4010 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Principal With copy to: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34103; or at such other address as Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignor given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. Assignee shall give and deliver a copy of any notice, demand or other communication which Assignee gives or delivers to, or receives from, City and/or the Authority under the Redevelopment Contract, and that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of Assignor under the Redevelopment Contract, delivered personally to Assignor or given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract to Assignor pursuant to the notice addresses set forth therein, or at such other address as Assignor may, from time to time, designate by written notice to Assignee. 8. This Assignment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 9. This Assignment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, which counterparts when considered together shall constitute a single, binding, valid and enforceable agreement. [Signature pages follow] City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 9 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership By Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, its General Partner By:_________________________ Pat Mascia, Senior Vice President STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2010, by Pat Mascia, the Senior Vice President of Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation, as General Partner of Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership, on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Public City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 10 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ASSIGNEE: WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By:_________________________ Christopher Culp, Principal STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2010, by Christopher Culp, Principal of WEA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34103 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 11 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group CONSENT, ESTOPPEL AND AGREEMENT The undersigned, City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), hereby (i) consent to (A) the transfer of the Subject Property (as defined in the foregoing Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract) (the “Assignment and Assumption”) by the Assignor named therein (the “Assignor”) to the Assignee named therein (the “Assignee”) , and (B) the execution and delivery by the Assignor and the Assignee of the Assignment and Assumption, and the terms and provisions thereof; (ii) agree that in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption and the terms and provisions of the Redevelopment Contract (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), the terms and provisions of the Assignment and Assumption shall control; (iii) releases Assignor from all the Assumed Obligations as defined in the Assignment and Assumption; (iv) warrant, represent and certify to the Assignee as follows: (A) The Redevelopment Contract has not been modified or amended and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof; and (B) There is no Event of Default in existence, nor is there in existence any state of facts or circumstances which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of Default under the Redevelopment Contract. City and the Authority further covenant and agree to and for the benefit of the Assignee as follows: (C) City and the Authority will not enter into any modification or amendment of the Redevelopment Contract that would affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption) unless such modification or amendment is entered into by Assignee. City and the Authority will not enter into any agreement terminating the Redevelopment Contract without the prior written consent of Assignee, unless such termination does not affect the rights and interests of the Assignee. (D) If an Event of Default (as defined in the Redevelopment Contract) occurs, and such Event of Default does not relate to the Assumed Obligations (as defined in the Assignment and Assumption), City and the Authority may not and will not exercise their rights and remedies under the Redevelopment Contract arising or existing by reason of such Event of Default with respect to the Assignee or the Subject Property. (E) If the City and the Authority deliver any notice, demand or other communication to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract that relates to or may affect the rights and interest of the Assignee under the Redevelopment Contract or the Assumed Obligations, the City or Authority (as the case may be) shall deliver a copy of such notice, demand or communication to the Assignee in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract, addressed or delivered personally to the Assignee as follows: City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 12 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group WEA, LLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4010 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Principal With copy to: Jay F. Cook Law Offices of Jay F. Cook, P.L. 5150 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34103; or at such other address as the Assignee may, from time to time, designate by written notice to City and the Authority given or delivered in the manner set forth in Section 10.5 of the Redevelopment Contract. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 13 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and the Authority have caused this Consent, Estoppel and Agreement to be duly executed as of this _____________ day of _________________, 2010. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _______________, 2010, by Jeff Jacobs and Thomas Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 14 Subject: Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty and The Excelsior Group ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its President By: Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of ________________, 2010, by Phil Finkelstein and Thomas Harmening, the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 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: Resolution rescinding CUP Resolution 89-121 relating to a previous use at the West End Redevelopment Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution 89-121. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: This agenda item is a “house keeping” item for the West End Apartments development. The purpose of the attached resolution is to make it clear that the CUP approved in 1989 for the no longer existing Novartis Warehouse, is no longer in effect. Resolution 89-121, which approved Conditional Use Permit for the former Novartis Warehouse building, is being noted as an exception on the title insurance company search for the West End Apartments development site located at 5310 16th Street West. The 2008 resolution approving the PUD for the West End Redevelopment Project states that it rescinds all previous approvals for the site. However, because Resolution 89-121 was not specifically named, the title company will not remove this as an exception on the title search. Therefore, the Excelsior Group has requested the City specifically rescind Resolution 89-121 to clear the title. The attached resolution accomplishes that task and satisfies the title company. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Resolution to rescind Resolution 89-121 Resolution 89-121 Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Subject: Resolution Rescinding CUP Resolution No. 89-121 RESOLUTION NO. 10-___ A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 89-121 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 31, 1989, GRANTING A SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14-121(2)(A) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PILOT PLANT AT 1551 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH FINDINGS WHEREAS, Resolution 89-121 (Recorded as Doc. No. 2038297) granting a Special (Conditional Use) Permit for an Office Warehouse, Research and Development and Pilot Plant at 1551 Vernon Avenue was adopted on August 31, 1989; WHEREAS, the Office Warehouse, Research and Development and Pilot Plant has ceased operations, the building has been demolished, and the subject property has been replatted and redeveloped; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution 08-057 on April 28, 2008 approving a Final Planned Unit Development and rescinding and replacing all previous resolutions approving conditional use permits, special use permits, and planned unit developments pertaining to the property related to The West End Redevelopment Project; legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the intent of Resolution 08-057 was to include rescinding Resolution 89-121 (Recorded as Doc. No. 2038297), though it was not specifically named; WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to rescind Resolution No. 89-121 specifically. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 89-121 is hereby rescinded. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Resolution Rescinding CUP Resolution No. 89-121 Page 3 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Resolution Rescinding CUP Resolution No. 89-121 Page 4 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Resolution Rescinding CUP Resolution No. 89-121 Page 5 Meeting Date: September 20, 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: Vendor Claims. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period September 4, 2010 through September 17, 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 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 170.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER 170.00 1,018.41ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3D SPECIALTIES INC 1,018.41 296.05GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC 296.05 3,029.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACZ LABORATORIES INC 3,029.00 1,350.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAECOM INC 1,350.00 243.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC 14,455.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 14,698.00 5,940.05INSPECTIONS G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I 5,940.05 176.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 176.25 155.48PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER 44.36PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 187.56ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 59.06WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 59.06SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 9.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 563.19 1,779,540.23CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMES CONSTRUCTION 1,779,540.23 789.92E-911 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 789.92 959.42FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL 959.42 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 474.76PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I 474.76 598.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC 598.50 65.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE 65.79 175.47REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBATCHELOR, LISA 175.47 54.51BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS 60.90WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.41 1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC 1,400.00 20,710.00WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTBERGERSON CASWELL INC 20,710.00 225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN 225.00 364.68PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 364.68 433.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS 433.91 343.50CE MATERIALS TESTING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 343.50 192.38WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBRO TEX INC 192.38 2,235.45PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 2,235.45 94.83PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBUSINESS TRAINING EXPERTS City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 94.84WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.84SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 94.84STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 379.35 10,401.73ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC 585.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 30.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES 30.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES 11,046.73 427.50IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE 427.50 16.50SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY 16.50 289.66GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECHIEF'S TOWING INC 289.66 1,492.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHILDREN FIRST 1,492.00 17.49GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 17.49 2.40-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK 37.32IT G & A TRAINING 516.79TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 4.84TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 556.55 10,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCLASSIC GLASS & MIRROR 10,500.00 16,279.32ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES 16,279.32 114.10PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY 114.10 5,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMERCIAL PLUMBING & HEATING City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 4Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 5,000.00 22,500.36EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S 22,500.36 75.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB 75.00 450.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCROWN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES INC 450.00 1,800.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTCUES INC 1,800.00 3,405.04SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES 3,877.43SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,018.50SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 589.95SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,890.92 6,076.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 4,515.47WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,592.06 1,804.80GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC 1,804.80 2,597.83INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY 2,597.83 231.20ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC 231.20 1,638.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC 956.30PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,594.30 2,964.50SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC 214.38NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,178.88 573.36ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 5Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 573.36 254.30PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE 16.36-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 237.94 212.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV 212.50 34,152.39SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING 34,152.39 205.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFARMERS MARKET ANNEX 205.00 21.12POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX 21.12 343.27ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS 343.27 189.57WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 189.57 214.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP 13.78-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 200.48 602.00CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGILBERT MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 602.00 16.03POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTGLOCK INC 16.03 150.05KICKBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESGLSPORTS 150.05 150.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS 150.00 330.97NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRAGE, ANDREA 330.97 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 6Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 340.79WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTGRAINGER INC, WW 340.78SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 340.78STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,022.35 628.44WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS 628.44 32.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARGROSS, ALISON 32.00 2,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER 2,800.00 300.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE 300.00 1,978.06WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC 1,978.06 35.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEITZMAN, SUSAN 35.00 100.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY 100.00 422.27IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH 422.27 443.88PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 443.88 149.48GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEHENRICKSEN PSG 149.48 82.26REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHETH, ALICE 82.26 6,589.78SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC 6,589.78 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 7Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 513.00PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC 513.00 350.00VARIANCESZONING/SUBDIVISIONHOLLEN, EDWIN 350.00 136.67PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLSHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 21.25ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.40TRAFFIC CONTROL GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.96PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 11.77WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.63WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 71.51WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 17.13SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 22.61SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 612.93 12.80WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE 12.80 151.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOPE, BRUCE & ANNE 151.67 140.00ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK 140.00 247.46PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MN 247.46 100.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY 100.00 100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE 75.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.00 23.68SUMMER GRADE 6-8 GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 23.68 847.55GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEI-STATE TRUCK CENTER 847.55 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 8Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 267.19TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO 267.19 562.61GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEINVER GROVE FORD 562.61 81.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN 63.74POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145.24 300.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJM CONSULTING LTD 300.00 34.95INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSJOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION 34.95 170.57NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJUSTESEN, MARK 170.57 276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z 276.92 1,774.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKEYS WELL DRILLING CO 1,774.50 1,800.00ESCROWSPOINT OF SALE HOUSING PROGRAMKIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, IN 1,800.00 63.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLAKES GAS CO 63.48 15,295.14PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAMPERT YARDS INC 15,295.14 1,440.69UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE 1,440.69 61.12REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEE, JON 61.12 43.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS 43.00 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 9Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 27.62HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONLOOKOUT BAR & GRILL 27.62 280.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORINSER, ANTHONY 280.00 416.51WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTM&M HYDRAULIC COMPANY 416.51 641.78FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESM-K GRAPHICS 641.78 187.50ENTERPRISE G & A TRAININGMAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC. 187.50 63.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT 63.00 82.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALMETRO HEATING & COOLING 82.00 4,158.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL 303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 307,841.28 8,357.13SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 764.37PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,650.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,771.50 69.28HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO 69.28 935.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC 935.00 428.78SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORP 428.78 788.02NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINIKAHDA OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AS 788.02 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 10Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 139.98EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC 139.98 58.78POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC 58.78 1,238.59EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT 1,238.59 16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS 16.00 1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMULFINGER, THARCISSE & ANN 1,000.00 67.96HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONMURPHY, KAREN 67.96 28.82ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) 25.43INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 521.14PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 13.28VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 588.67 557.89STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICENEENAH FOUNDREY 557.89 51.09ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESNORTHWEST LASERS INC 51.09 500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL 500.00 129.33SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOFFICE DEPOT 36.18GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.67POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.42COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 14.02PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 42.87PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 75.98ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 3.95PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 11Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 10.07PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.01ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 66.84WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.01VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.03WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.03SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 511.41 2,753.16PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION 85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 106.88WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 96.18NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,041.72 79.69ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH 20.00HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 6.05ASSESSING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 14.90FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 29.84INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.26INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE 5.00INSPECTIONS G & A MISC EXPENSE 219.74 76.64ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC 76.64 73.86REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPIEHL, KEISHA 73.86 360.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM 360.80 185.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEPOSTMASTER 185.00 277.66WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603 277.66SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 277.67SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 277.67STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,110.66 1,400.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRECISION FIRE SPRINKLER INC City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 12Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,400.00 144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC 144.00 16,658.34PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE 16,658.34 2,530.03STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING 2,530.03 1,607.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I 1,607.00 111.27VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER 111.27 70.99IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST 123.40COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE 519.41E-911 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 713.80 532.91ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESR & R SPECIALTIES 532.91 52.64WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING 52.64SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 52.63SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 52.63STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 210.54 7,541.45SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHERREHRIG PACIFIC CO 7,541.45 1,205.55STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC 1,205.55 45.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUESALVATION ARMY 45.00 2,174.00ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB 42.07SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 13Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 49.22PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES 37.19WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,632.31CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES 6,934.79 606.27PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 606.27 80.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCOTT, LOU 80.67 108.44NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHARE, JOHN 108.44 819.01PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO 819.01 39,393.45PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON 39,393.45 362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, JENNIFER 362.50 212.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, MARK 212.50 42,242.42TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 42,242.42 20.35INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC 20.35 13,356.95PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 6,663.73CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 20,020.68 905.00SUMMER GRADE 6-8 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC 905.00 25.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGST MICHAEL, CITY OF 25.00 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 14Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 265.98SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTITCHIN POST 265.98 1,212.77POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S 1,212.77 170.89ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS 170.89 7,000.00SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSN 7,000.00 473.69ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSUPERCO SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 473.69 362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTABER, SUSAN 362.50 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 64.80FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 112.56COMM DEV 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 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 1,878.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 2,804.60 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 15Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 140.58NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY 140.58 315.00ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 315.00 5,228.89ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESTKDA 1,010.23SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 6,239.12 27.24-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTOMAR ELECTRONICS 432.65MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 405.41 29,689.88Federal EECBG Grant Project IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITRAFFIC CONTROL CORP 29,689.88 200.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, KYLE 200.00 359.75PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSTRI STATE BOBCAT 359.75 300.38GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640 300.38 17.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC 17.17 61.98REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWEETEN, JOEL & KARYN 61.98 2,815.28PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY HARDWARE 2,815.28 847.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESUHL CO INC 847.00 7,000.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESULI MINNESOTA 7,000.00 608.68SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD) City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 16Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,278.66PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 448.06SCHOOL LIASON OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 124.34RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,459.74 211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA 211.00 6,686.10TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE 6,686.10 608.30WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERUSA BLUE BOOK 608.30 74.37POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC 74.37 27.01SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC 27.01 132,188.03CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC 341,236.24CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 473,424.27 5,951.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC 5,951.23 275.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVAN MAASDAM, ANDREW AND CHARIS 275.00 1,290.73VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS 73.36COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE 1,364.09 364.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC 364.50 172.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 172.50 2,413.00SUMMER GRADE 6-8 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE RIDGE ELC 2,413.00 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17 9/16/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:22:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 17Page -Council Check Summary 9/17/2010 -9/4/2010 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 608.39ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS 105.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 713.39 16,179.54FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY 187.80PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE 502.29WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 23,722.89ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 73.57GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 10.76OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE 119.81OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE 40,796.66 4,023.15PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC 4,023.15 23.29PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 23.29PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.29VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.87 1,965.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC 1,965.53 1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWZUEG, ZAK 1,000.00 Report Totals 3,097,121.34 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4f City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – February 16, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Vice Chair Morgan called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Jonathan Awasom, Tony Deos, Alison Knoche, Stuart Morgan, Jeff Mueller, Isabella Stewart and Shelley T Weier Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson B. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. C. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Mueller, seconded by Commissioner Deos, to approve the minutes of January 19, 2010, as presented. The motion passed 7-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner and staff reports Vice Chair Morgan noted he was now a member of the State Human Rights Commission. Commissioners discussed an article that had appeared that day in the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper regarding the proposed Divestment Resolution that the Commission voted to send to City Council. Ms. Olson indicated the Work Plan and Annual Report would be going to the City Council Study Session February 22nd. HRC members may be invited to the next Study Session if necessary. III. Sub Committee Reports – Diversity Lens/Outreach • Review draft of new Human Rights Commission Brochure: Ms. Olson handed out a draft version of the Human Rights Commission Brochure produced by City staff. It included the City’s new branding and also brought in the Diversity Lens. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes February 16, 2010 Commissioners thought it looked great. They suggested a few changes including adding an Email contact and the web site in the “Join Us” section, listing the phone number under “Protected classes” and redesigning of that section, including a title in the phone number section and making the photo in the middle more clear. • Review draft of new Diversity Lens Brochure: Ms. Olson distributed the draft Diversity Lens brochure. Commissioners suggested the web address be added to the front, moving text covering the picture on the back, continue wrapping words around the Lens and more diverse photos. Ms. Olson noted she would review other possible photos and work with the designer on the recommended changes. III. 2010 Work Plan Discussion Ms. Olson reviewed changes made to the Work Plan from suggestions at the last meeting. They would hear from City Council after their meeting if they approved the Work Plan. Chair Lyon applied for a grant to do a photo series and they would know in March if the grant had been awarded. If they get the funding, the HRC is interested in participating in an exhibit or opening event. IV. New Business Ms. Olson clarified that Minneapolis, not St. Louis Park, has a sister city in Iraq. Commissioner Deos suggested the Commission consider the possibility of having a sister City. Ms. Olson stated she would check into that process or if it were a possibility. Ms. Olson stated they were planning to have a joint meeting with the Community Education Advisory Council, possibly in March. She would let Commissioners know. A new commissioner (School Board appointee) would be starting at the next meeting. Commissioners discussed planning another event or celebration. Ms. Olson suggested they be part of the Parktacular parade. Further discussion was planned for the next meeting. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4g City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – March 16, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Lyons called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Jonathan Awasom, Tony Deos, Bill Gavzy, Alison Knoche Prosser, Sharon Lyon, Vladimir Sivriver, Isabella Stewart and Mary Tomback Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson B. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Gavzy, seconded by Commissioner Tomback, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 8-0. C. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Knocke Prosser noted her name should be corrected. It was moved by Commissioner Knocke Prosser, seconded by Commissioner Deos, to approve the minutes of February 16, 2010, as amended. The motion passed 8-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner and staff reports Commissioner Deos noted he would be resigning from the Commission due to a move out of the country. Chair Lyons referenced a letter to the Commission from Mayor Jacobs regarding the Resolution they sent to City Council. The Council is not adopting the proposed resolution. Ms. Olson indicated the Council would look at the Work Plan and notify the HRC Members when they are ready to meet with the commission. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 III. Sub Committee Reports – Diversity Lens/Outreach • Review updated draft of new Human Rights Commission Brochure Ms. Olson reviewed the changes made from the last version (photos, rearranged text, phone numbers, web page). It was suggested that the web page print be made larger, include the HRC phone number under questions and concerns and wording be reviewed for protected classes. They can finalize the brochure at the next meeting. • Review updated draft of new Diversity Lens Brochure Ms. Olson reviewed the changes (word wrapping, change of photo, insert diversity lens as reminder, back: moved text down and changed photo). Commissioners suggested changed the color and font of the web site on the front, revise the wrapping text so words were not cut off, text in red should be bold and darker, change mission paragraph to singular and move circles on right. Ms. Olson would Email final version. IV. Community Events for 2010 Sunday, May 16th, 2-5 PM, Children First Ice Cream Social Tuesday, June 15th, 5:30-8:30 PM, Fire Department Open House Saturday, June 19th, Noon – 2:00 PM, Parktacular Parade, 2-6 PM Promote Yourself Tuesday, August 3rd, National Night Out Ms. Olson stated the Commission could have information booths at the above events. It would be good to be at the Promote Yourself event, the Ice Cream Social and the Fire Department Open House. The Commission hadn’t done the parade in the last few years. She will have a sign up sheet at the April meeting and they can decide the events to attend in June. V. New Business - None VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4h City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – April 20, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Sharon Lyon, Jeff Mueller, Stuart Morgan, Vladimir Sivriver, Isabella Stewart and Mary Tomback Commissioners Absent: Mohamed Abdi, Jonathan Awasom, Bill Gavzy Alison Knoche Prosser and Shelley T Weier Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson B. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. C. Approval of Minutes Chair Lyon requested in the future absent commissioners be included in the minutes. It was moved by Commissioner Tomback, seconded by Commissioner Sivriver, to approve the minutes of March 16, 2010, as presented. The motion passed 6-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner and staff reports Ms. Olson indicated a bias crime had been reported to the Police Department last week. A home had been vandalized and they also reported harassment of a teen boy that occurred on the bus and Facebook because he was Asian. Standard protocol is to send a letter from the Commission with a brochure. Commissioners discussed if they could provide additional support (help with reporting to the State). Ms. Olson noted she would check into the role the Commission could play and also indicated there is a School Police liaison that can also assist students with these types of issues. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes April 20, 2010 Commissioner Morgan reported on his appointment to the State Human Rights Commission and their membership. III. New Business • Review final draft of new Human Rights Commission Brochure • Review final draft of new Diversity Lens Brochure Final versions of the brochures were distributed. Ms. Olson noted that the web site would be updated further and changes had been made based on Commissioner input at the last meeting. Commissioners were very impressed with the quality of the brochures. Chair Lyon requested the next agenda include an item to discuss how to present the Vision Lens information to the community. IV. Children First Ice Cream Social – Sunday, May 16th Ms. Olson stated the Commission will be sharing a booth at the social with the Police Advisory Commission and they need help with set up, working at the booth and clean up. It is a good opportunity to meet with residents and make them aware of the Commission. They also have activities and stickers for kids. Commissioner Morgan agreed to check with the State to see if they have more handouts to make available. Commissioner Tomback agreed to check with a friend who does promotional items to see if they could get additional items for children. Commissioner Stewart agreed to volunteer the day of the event and possibly bring a friend to help. Other upcoming events: Tuesday, June 15th, 5:30-8:30 PM, Fire Department Open House; and, Saturday, June 19th, Noon – 2:00 PM, Parktacular Parade, 2-6 PM Promote Yourself. V. New Business Commissioner Tomback asked about the possibility of working with the School Board on a review of the PSI school. Ms. Olson noted that this may be a good discussion to have with CEAC (Community Education Advisory Council) and she would work with their staff liaison to plan a future joint meeting. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4i City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – June 15, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Morgan called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Jonathan Awasom, Sharon Lyon, Stuart Morgan, Jeff Mueller, Isabella Stewart and Shelley T Weier Commissioners Absent: Mohamed Abdi, Bill Gavzy, Alison Knoche Prosser, Vladimir Sivriver and Mary Tomback Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson Guests: Dorothy Karlson, Bookmark in the Park B. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. C. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Stewart, to approve the minutes of May 20, 2010, as presented. The motion passed 6-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports A. Individual commissioner and staff reports Ms. Olson apologized she was not able to attend the Ice Cream Social because she had been ill. They decided not to have a booth because the newer members had agreed to attend and another volunteer was also unable to participate. The Commission discussed the Film Sub Committee and potentially having one movie in the fall. They have movies and a venue, but would need to get a speaker. Publicity for the City is now being done on the City website and through Facebook and Twitter, which may reach more people. One of the movies they have available is A Dream in Doubt. III. Bookmark in the Park – Dorothy Karlson Dorothy Karlson (djkarlso@ties2.net) presented the history of Bookmark in the Park, which began in 2005. It is a program to encourage reading in St. Louis Park. This is the sixth year City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 and the theme this year is “Inclusion”. The main book chosen is Seed Folks. They also chose other books including, The Help and The Latecomer. The author of The Latecomer is from St. Paul and they would like to have her speak at an event, but she will only do it for a fee. They would like the HRC to assist with the event planning, possibly buy some of the books and also help promoting the event. The tentative event date is October 28 at 7:30 PM and would be geared toward an adult audience. This could be done in the City Council Chambers or AAA Community room. She requested a couple of HRC members join their committee to work on putting this together. They would not meet much during the summer. Work is primarily done in the fall. Commissioners felt this would be a good tie in for the Commission and possibly something to work on rather than doing a film in the fall. It would be a great opportunity to get the Diversity Lens presented to residents and promote the HRC. Commissioner Morgan and Weier volunteered to work on the Bookmark committee on behalf of the HRC. It was moved by Commissioner Weier, seconded by Commissioner Awasom, to partner with Bookmark In the Park. The motion passed 6-0. IV. Diversity Lens Ms. Olson provided the final version of the Diversity Lens handout. Chair Lyon indicated that the Commission needed to work on a process to implement the Diversity Lens and encourage support from the City and City Council. Ms. Olson stated the Commission is scheduled to report on the work plan and annual report to City Council on July 12th. They can bring this document along and talk with Council about it at that time. V. New Business Commissioner Awasom discussed his work and suggested that the Commission work with other communities on global relations and human rights. Commissioners felt the City Council would probably limit the HRC work to St. Louis Park and suggested Commissioner Awasom become more involved on a State level. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4j City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Minutes – July 20, 2010 Westwood Room, City Hall I. Call to Order Chair Lyon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. A. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Bill Gavzy, Alison Knoche Prosser, Sharon Lyon, Stuart Morgan, Vladimir Sivriver and Shelley T Weier Commissioners Absent: Jonathan Awasom, Jeff Mueller, Isabella Stewart and Mary Tomback Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson Guests: Rashmi Seneviratne, Police Advisory Commission B. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. It was moved by Commissioner Gavzy, seconded by Commissioner Weier, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0. C. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Weier, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve the minutes of June 15, 2010, as presented. The motion passed 6-0. II. Commissioner and Committee Reports Ms. Olson indicated Mohamed Abdi had resigned. The Police Department notified the Ms. Olson about a bias crime report involving harassing phone calls made to Fishmans Kosher Market and Deli. The Police tracked the calls to a number in Florida and an Officer contacted the caller to inform them the calls were harassment. Ms. Olson drafted a letter to send to the Market on behalf of the Commission. Commissioner Sivriver stated he held a Children’s party at Oak Hill Park and recommended the park. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes July 20, 2010 Commissioner Morgan reported he was involved in a summer program in North Minneapolis to put underemployed youth to work in the summer (funded by the Pohlad Assn). They have hired and trained nine youth who are very happy and learning great skills. Chair Lyon stated the Iraqi art opening is on Thursday night and would send more information. Ms. Olson indicated the Bookmark in the Park meeting would be scheduled in August. Commissioners Weier and Morgan agreed to assist. The Human Rights Day Conference is December 3. Coach Boone from Remember the Titans is the keynote speaker and will also being doing a break out session. Commissioners are encouraged to go and Ms. Olson would send further information. III. Update from Council Study Session Chair Lyon and Commissioner Morgan attended the study session. Council was receptive to the Commission who presented an overview of the last year’s activities. They asked about considering a broader scale and Council made it clear that was not the Commissions role and Commissioners can do that on their own time, not representing the Commission. They wanted more attention drawn to issues around gender preference. They liked the collaboration with Bookmark in the Park and encouraged finding more ways to do public outreach. The film series was important, but they were happy with the partnering with Bookmark. They talked about the Diversity Lens and programs to implement it. Commissioners asked for the City’s support with that. Ms. Seneviratne stated the Council wanted the HRC to work with PAC specifically on immigrant issues and how they related to the Police. They were also working on domestic violence issues and ways to build trust and communication. Commissioners discussed possible populations and places to do outreach. IV. Diversity Lens Chair Lyon asked what the Commission could do to get the Lens into action. She had hoped they would have gotten more direction from Council. Ms. Olson believed that Council was looking to the HRC to move it forward in a manner they thought worked. It will be inserted with Welcome Packets for new residents. Other ideas included making it available to school social workers and different groups (non profits, social services), get to landlords for renters, provide to Twin West Chamber of Commerce, hand it out at the State of the City and at the Bookmark event. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes July 20, 2010 Ms. Olson sits on the Family Service Collaborative Board and could bring it to their meeting and ask them to include it in their brochure and would also present it to the Community Development Director and provide City Directors with the new brochure. It would also be on the City web site. V. National Night Out National Night out is on Tuesday, August 3rd. Meadowbrook Apartments and town homes are having an International flavor celebrating the diversity of residents. The HRC has done a booth in the past. Louisiana Court also holds events. Ms. Olson requested commissioners who are interested in attending these parties contact her. In addition, anyone attending their own NNO party is encouraged to distribute diversity lens magnets and brochures. VI. New Business - None IV. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Weier, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 4k OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting April 21, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Flumerfelt, George Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, and Kirk Hawkinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Christina Barberot, Jenny Coig, George Foulkes, Tom Worthington STAFF PRESENT: Rick Beane, Rick Birno, and Stacy Voelker 1. Call to Order George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Presentation: Dakota Canine Club Mike MacDonald, founder of the Dakota Canine Club, feels it is a privilege to address the Commission and thanked them for all that has been done at the Off-Leash Dog Parks. Commission members introduced themselves as did staff. Mr. MacDonald indicated they currently have 92 dog owner families on the Dakota Canine Club (DCC) email list. He received feedback from five people last month that purchased homes in the Dakota neighborhood because of the dog park proximity to their home. Mr. MacDonald introduces himself and talks with people regularly and finds the feedback received is overwhelmingly positive. Mr. MacDonald commented he has cleaned up feces and promotes leading by example. He has noticed dog owners advising other users when a clean-up is needed; the users are very conscientious. Comments Mr. MacDonald has heard include the gate is in a low place of the park which is caused by flooding but he feels it is too expensive to move. Another comment received is the small dog area is too large; a disproportionate area. Mr. MacDonald feels it is more important to have a small area available and the attendance has increased. He noted that some small dogs utilize that area and others visit the regular size dog park. Mr. Beane advised users when staff staked area for small dog park and staff also considered the neighbors when the light was installed. Mr. Beane also mentioned the security light at Dakota has improved security. Mr. MacDonald inquired if Mr. Beane had received any complaints. Complaints have been received regarding the Cedar Knoll dog park, indicated Mr. Beane. There have been no complaints received in the past six to eights months from the Dakota dog park since the entrance gate was moved as the drinking fountain with jug filler is located in the main parking area. Compliments have been received, Mr. Beane indicated, from what the DCC has accomplished. Mr. MacDonald mentioned he has sent emails to users advising them to use the large parking area. Mr. McDonald also believes it was a huge benefit to meet with the neighborhood prior to improvements at Dakota Park. Off Leash Dog Park users that utilize both off leash parks have commented of a disgruntled neighbor at Cedar Knoll Park, advised Mr. MacDonald. Some users have stopped utilizing Cedar Knoll Park due to an aggressive neighbor but Mr. MacDonald advises users to ignore the neighbor. Mr. Beane City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 noted the largest complaint received is dog barking and off-leash issues at Cedar Knoll Park. Signs will be installed at both dog parks asking owners to remove dogs when they continually bark. Mr. Beane asked for Mr. MacDonald’s assistance in informing users of that issue. That park is slowly increasing in popularity and more woodchips have been added. Mr. MacDonald will spend more time at Cedar Knoll Park and talk to people about situations that have become issues and express a fear of losing the park. Mr. Hagemann suggested sending an email to dog owners to solicit input from the users of the Cedar Knoll site to help create an environment similar to Dakota Park. No complaints have been received, Mr. Birno indicated, regarding the Dakota Dog Park. Mr. MacDonald states that users are encouraged to call him prior to the city and he receives input and talks with the users. Mr. Beane advised there has been minimal maintenance needed at the dog park and staff has never had to pick up feces. Mr. MacDonald asked for more woodchips at Dakota and Mr. Beane advised staff will acquire more in June and distribute at that time. Mr. MacDonald expressed his gratitude to staff for all that has been done and feels it is a great improvement to the city. He enjoys talking to users and receiving input on the dog parks. Mr. Hagemann thanked Mr. MacDonald for all his time, and his thoughtful way to approach users and the city to be responsive and willing to do numerous tasks. Mr. MacDonald complimented the Commission and also the regular dog park users as it takes cooperation of all participants. 3. Approval of Minutes March 17, 2010 Commissioner Hallfin made a motion to approve the March 17, 2010 minutes. The motion passed 4- 0. 4. New Business Potential Turf Users Discussion Staff presented to Council the feasibility report to add artificial turf, advised Mr. Birno, with a mixed reaction received. Council asked staff to find real, significant numbers to lend credibility toward user patterns and revenue as well as research how this type of facility may partner with the community center study. Mr. Birno advised $1.5 million is approximate amount to construct an uncovered facility at the current stadium. This projected amount could increase with additions or changes to parking, concessions, restrooms, etc. Andy Ewald, St. Louis Park Athletic Director, created a document which included the school districts potential use pattern. The city needs to review what our use pattern would be and if there would be fees or fiscal commitments for use and the opportunity for adult leagues. Mr. Birno asked Commission members of their expectations of the associations toward the artificial turf field. This would not be a free use facility and believes council will not approved until financial commitments and potential use patterns are presented. Mr. Hagemann inquired if the community center will be at the same location as the field. Mr. Birno indicated it was too early in the process to answer that question with any certainty. Mr. Hagemann feels turf discussion should wait until more is known about the community center. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Subject: Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 Mr. Hallfin suggested contacting each athletic association inquiring what their financial and usage commitment would be to the field. Associations would include baseball, soccer, football, lacrosse and any other organization that may have a use of artificial turf. Mr. Hagemann inquired if there are any other ideas or opportunities for contributions to this process (i.e. fundraising). Mr. Hagemann wondered if the field should be domed to protect it from the weather which would also increase year-round use. Non-traditional use could be encouraged such as walking or other non-team opportunities. The community vision survey information data suggested the need for non-structured, year-round recreation areas commented Mr. Birno. Mr. Birno suggested contacting the associations regarding fiscal support for the artificial turf field if the city/school were to build the field. Long-term commitment funding might be more manageable for associations, advised Mr. Hallfin, along with a set amount of time commitment. There would probably be a rental fee for turf field users. Currently associations use facilities for free. Mr. Hallfin inquired what the revenue differences were for domed facilities versus non-domed facilities. Research indicated uncovered facilities bring in approximately $20,000 in total revenue annually, advised Mr. Birno, where covered facilities generate approximately $300,000-$400,000 in revenue annually. Keep in mind there is an additional expense to build, maintain and operate a covered facility. Current facilities in other communities indicate local organizations generally pay minimal rental fees and non-resident organizations pay more. Mr. Hallfin inquired if most facilities researched are owned by school districts and Mr. Birno advised it varies from community to community. b. Jorvig Park Information Mr. Birno provided members with an update on the St. Louis Park Historical Society. A previous resident contacted the historical society indicating he had purchased old train cars on rails and they are located in back of his house which is in Cottage Grove. He wanted to donate the train cars and rails to the historical society. The Historical Society contacted the city to inquire if they could be installed in Jorvig Park. Mr. Beane and Mr. Birno will view the train cars/rails on Friday. Staff will keep the Commission informed. c. Park Tour at May Meeting – begin at 6 p.m. Mr. Beane suggested a park tour prior to the May meeting and inquired what parks the Commission would like to view. The Commission toured the Beehive and Fern Hill Park last year. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if Fern Hill Park has been completed; Mr. Beane advised it is ready to operate and is currently in use. Members could visit Birchwood Park and discuss what will take place once renovation begins, advised Mr. Beane. At Aquila Park, stated Mr. Beane, field four, the batting cage, scoreboard, dug outs, basketball, building, and trail has been constructed. Mr. Hallfin advised he will be unavailable to attend the May meeting. Mr. Beane indicated the city has a nine passenger van available. The tour will begin at 6 p.m. first meeting at The Rec Center. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Subject: Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 5. Old Business a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-up Recap Great compliments were received from staff and the Commission on the Minnehaha clean-up effort. The event was very organized and Mr. Jim Vaughan did a great job. Mr. Beane advised the three loads of garbage were picked up in two hours on Monday and feels it was a great area to clean. There were approximately 100 volunteers and Target provided some participants along with refreshments for all. Police assisted in removing four homeless people living in the clean-up area. The Target and Brehmer Bank parking lots were cleaned up also. Mr. Hagemann suggested having two people with waders to work as a team in the wet areas. Members and staff discussed alternating every other year at the two locations (MSC and by Target/Brehmer Bank). Mr. Hagemann suggested regular groups move through and maintain both areas – split groups to both locations. Members recommended connecting or having a challenge with the Cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka for them to provide their creek clean-up on the same day. Staff advised artist Stacy Goodman attended the clean-up to collect items for art work which will be displayed in The Rec Center’s entrance. Members discussed rewarding groups or providing “thank you’s” with donated gift certificates from local businesses or rentals from the city (i.e. canoe rental, shelter rental). Members discussed options to obtain food/donations. Members thanked staff. 6. Communications Chair None. Commissioners Mr. Hawkinson advised of article he read regarding monitoring the exhaust from Zamboni’s. Mr. Birno advised there is a group of ice rink managers working with the author of the Bill. Thresholds are changing, advised Mr. Beane, and all rinks will be impacted. Mr. Flumerfelt advised the eight students from BSM that volunteered for the creek clean-up had a great time. Mr. Beane advised everyone had fun and the weather was good. Mr. Hallfin indicated he heard it was a great event and wishes he could have been available that day. Staff appreciation lunch was pushed back to October last year, recommends holding and recommended staying with October. This year was a great spring and all the athletic groups were able to access the fields two weeks earlier than usuan and everything was in great shape. Mr. Hallfin thanked the city for all they’ve done. Mr. Beane will pass the compliment along to staff. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Subject: Park & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes April 21, 2010 c. Friends of the Arts Update Mr. Hagemann indicated one of the final pieces of Our Town, Verses and Voices was held on Tuesday night. The last piece will consist of favorite poems and the city agreed to use in the next city/school calendar along with photography. Participation has been lower but the people that went through it were very appreciative. The city poet, Diane Pecoraro, asked FOA to facilitate moving forward with the art and culture grant. This has been a very fulfilling project for Diane and the value has been very rewarding. Mr. Hagemann commented on the importance of looking at various options and promotions. Program Report – Rick Birno Mr. Birno indicated activity registration has been great! Benilde-St. Margaret’s field is currently under construction so they will be utilizing city fields until construction is complete. The Recreation Supervisor position was offered to Lisa Abernathy who is a Falcon Heights Park and Recreation employee. Lisa begins June1. Phil Weber of the Park Tavern indicated he would like to have a special event to celebrate Park Tavern’s 30 years of operation. The potential date is Sunday, Sept. 19. Park Tavern would like to use the proceeds from the event for Tree Trust to plant trees next summer throughout St. Louis Park. Mr. Beane provided an update on the Birchwood Park project. Peat soils are an issue and may increase the project expense. The building demolition portion of the project is fine. Staff will process a Conditional Use Permit; the cell phone company (if the tower moves forward) will process their own Conditional Use Permit. Staff initiated a neighborhood meeting regarding the potential installation of a cell phone tower which went good. Calls are now being received regarding potential health issues from the tower. e. Director Report None. 7. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Hawkinson to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed 4 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 6a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Urban Park. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open and close the public hearing Motion to adopt Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for Urban Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to undertake the action as proposed? The proposed action is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing private activity revenue bonds. BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park issued private activity revenue bonds on behalf of West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership (West Suburban) May 1, 2002. The proceeds were applied to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an 88-unit multi-family rental housing development now known as Urban Park, which is located at 3601 Phillips Parkway in St. Louis Park. West Suburban is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity revenue bonds for the purposes of refunding existing debt from the 2002 bond issue. The aggregate principal amount of the Series 2010 bonds will be an amount not to exceed approximately $8,625,000. This refunding will be for a period of thirty (30) years and will be facilitated by utilizing two financial institutions; Wells Fargo and Crown Bank. The Crown Bank portion will be accompanied by a confirming Letter of Credit being supplied by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, IA for credit enhancement. This is not unusual and staff has no concerns with the process. If the City Council approves the final bond resolution, this would allow the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon by the parties. Representatives from Kennedy and Graven and West Suburban will be available at the meeting to answer any questions the City Council or public may have. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: West Suburban has provided the City with the appropriate application, and resumes of several key staff, which will be on file in the City Clerk’s office. In addition, the City of St. Louis Park has City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution received the required fee of $2,500.00 in accordance with our policy. These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable solely from revenues of the West Suburban. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in two semi-annual payments to the City on based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year. These monies will be deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: By working with other entities such as West Suburban, the City of St. Louis Park is demonstrating its commitment to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10-_______ AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (URBAN PARK APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2010A, AND SUBORDINATE VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (URBAN PARK APARTMENTS PROJECT), SERIES 2010B, IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $8,625,000; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT, FINANCING AGREEMENT, INDENTURE OF TRUST, TRUST INDENTURE, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) is a home rule city and political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act and contemplated thereby in the financing and refinancing of multifamily housing developments within its boundaries, by issuing revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of multifamily rental housing developments, and by entering into any agreements made in connection therewith and by pledging any such agreements as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any such revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, in the financing or refinancing of multifamily housing developments, pursuant to the provisions of the Acct the City may exercise within its corporate limits any of the powers that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency may exercise under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A, as amended, without limitation under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended, the City was granted authorization by the Minnesota Department of Finance to issue tax-exempt obligations in the principal amount of $6,965,000; and WHEREAS, at the request of West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Borrower”), on May 7, 2002, the City issued the following obligations pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 02-037, adopted by the City Council of the City on April 15, 2002, and pursuant to the terms of an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2002 (the “Prior Indenture”): (i) Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2002A (At the Park Project) (the “Series 2002A Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,965,000; and (ii) Taxable Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B (At the Park Project) (the “Series 2002B Bonds”), in the original aggregate City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution principal amount of $2,595,000 (the Series 2002A Bonds and the Series 2002B Bonds are hereinafter referred collectively as the “Series 2002 Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2002 Bonds were loaned by the City to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2002 (the “Prior Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, and the proceeds of the loan were applied by the Borrower to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an 90-unit multifamily rental housing development (the “Project”) located at 3601 Phillips Parkway in the City; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2002, the City was granted additional authorization by the Minnesota Department of Finance to issue tax-exempt obligations in the additional principal amount of $2,800,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Prior Indenture, the City converted the Series 2002B Bonds to additional tax-exempt Series 2002A Bonds in the principal amount of $2,595,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 02-109, adopted by the City Council of the City on October 7, 2002, the City authorized the issuance of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Note, Subordinate Series 2002 (At the Park) (the “Series 2002 Note”), as tax-exempt obligations in the original aggregate principal amount of $205,000 (the remaining amount of tax-exempt bonds authorization granted by the Minnesota Department of Finance); and WHEREAS, the Series 2002A Bonds were issued by the Issuer in the original aggregate principal amount of $9,560,000 and are currently outstanding in the principal amount of $9,075,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Prior Bonds”) and the Series 2002 Note is currently outstanding in the principal amount of $205,000; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the City issue, sell, and deliver its: (i) Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Urban Park Apartments Project), Series 2010A (the “Series 2010A Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $7,125,000; and (ii) Subordinate Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Urban Park Apartments Project), Series 2010B (the “Series 2010B Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,500,000; and WHEREAS, the Series 2010A Bonds are proposed to be issued pursuant to the terms of an Indenture of Trust, dated on or after September 1, 2010 (the “Series 2010A Indenture”), between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), and the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2010A Bonds are proposed to be loaned to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated on or after September 1, 2010 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, and the proceeds of such loan are proposed to be applied by the Borrower to the redemption and prepayment of a portion of the Prior Bonds; and City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution WHEREAS, the Series 2010A Bonds are to be secured by an Irrevocable Letter of Credit to be issued by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, a national banking association, pursuant to the terms of a Reimbursement Agreement, dated on or after September 1, 2010, between the Borrower and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; and WHEREAS, the Series 2010B Bonds are proposed to be issued pursuant to the terms of a Trust Indenture, dated on or after September 1, 2010 (the “Series 2010B Indenture”), between the City and the Trustee, and the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2010B Bonds are proposed to be loaned to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of a Financing Agreement, dated on or after September 1, 2010 (the “Financing Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, and the proceeds of such loan are proposed to be applied by the Borrower to the redemption and prepayment of a portion of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Series 2010B Bonds are to be secured by an Irrevocable Letter of Credit to be issued by Crown Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, pursuant to the terms of a Reimbursement Agreement, to be dated on or after September 1, 2010, between the Borrower and Crown Bank, and the obligations of Crown Bank under its irrevocable letter of credit will be secured by an Irrevocable Confirming Letter of Credit to be issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines pursuant to the terms of a Confirming Letter of Credit Reimbursement Agreement, to be dated on or after September 1, 2010, between Crown Bank and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines; and WHEREAS, the Series 2010A Bonds and the interest on the Series 2010A Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefore under the Loan Agreement and the additional sources of revenue provided by or on behalf of the Borrower; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City’s interest in the Loan Agreement; and (v) shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City; and WHEREAS, the Series 2010B Bonds and the interest on the Series 2010B Bonds: (i) shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefore under the Financing Agreement and the additional sources of revenue provided by or on behalf of the Borrower; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; (iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City’s interest in the Financing Agreement; and (v) shall not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City; and WHEREAS, forms of the following documents, including the exhibits referred to therein (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Agreements”), have been submitted to the City: (i) the Series 2010A Indenture; (ii) the Loan Agreement; (iii) the Series 2010B Indenture; (iv) the Financing Agreement; and (iv) a First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, dated on or after September 1, 2010 (the “First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement”), between the City, the City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution Trustee, and the Borrower, which amends and supplements the Regulatory Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2002 (the “Original Regulatory Agreement”), between the City, the Trustee, and the Borrower; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the preservation of the quality of life in the City is dependent upon the maintenance, provision, and preservation of an adequate housing stock, which is affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, that accomplishing this is a public purpose, and that many would-be providers of housing units for low and moderate income persons in the City are either unable to afford mortgage credit at present market rates of interest or are unable to obtain mortgage credit. The City also hereby finds, determines, and declares that the Project has been designed to be affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross incomes not in excess of 110 percent of median family income as most recently estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Hennepin County, and that, based on representations of the Borrower, at least twenty percent (but not more than twenty-seven percent) of the dwelling units in the Project will be held for occupancy by families and individuals with adjusted gross incomes not in excess of fifty percent of the median family income. Section 2. In conjunction with the issuance of the Prior Bonds, the City Council of the City approved a Program for a Multifamily Housing Development (the “Housing Program”) to provide for the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project. The City hereby approves a First Amendment to Program for a Multifamily Housing Development (the “First Amendment to Housing Program”) substantially in the form now on file with the City with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine. Section 3. For the purpose of financing the Project, the City hereby authorizes the issuance of its: (i) Series 2010A Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount of $7,125,000; and (ii) Series 2010B Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,500,000. The Series 2010A Bonds and the Series 2010B Bonds are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Series 2010 Bonds” or the “Bonds.” The Series 2010A Bonds, substantially in the form set forth in the Series 2010A Indenture now on file with the City, and the Series 2010B Bonds, substantially in the form set forth in the Series 2010B Indenture now on file with the City, are hereby approved with the amendments referenced herein. The City hereby authorizes the Series 2010 Bonds to be issued as “tax-exempt bonds” the interest on which is not includable in gross income for federal and State of Minnesota income tax purposes. All of the provisions of the Series 2010 Bonds, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Series 2010 Bonds shall bear interest at such rates, shall be in such denominations, shall be City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such forms, and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed by the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture on file with the City, which forms are hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions (including changes to the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the stated maturities of the Bonds, the interest rates on the Bonds, the terms of redemption of the Bonds, and variations from City policies regarding methods of offering conduit bonds) as the Mayor and the City Manager (the “Mayor” and “City Manager”), in their discretion, shall determine. The execution of the Bonds with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and the delivery of the Bonds by the City shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged therefore and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or Charter imitation nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or assets and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than the City’s interest in the Project. The Bonds are not general or moral obligations of the City and are not secured by any taxing power of the City. Section 4. The Series 2010A Indenture is hereby approved. All of the provisions of the Series 2010A Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Series 2010A Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file with the City with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The Series 2010B Indenture is hereby approved. All of the provisions of the Series 2010B Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Series 2010B Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file with the City with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 5. The Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, a Bond Purchase Agreement, dated on or after the date of adoption of this resolution with respect to the Series 2010A Bonds (the “Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement”), between the City, the Borrower and Dougherty & Company, LLC (the “Underwriter”), and a Bond Purchase Agreement, dated on or after the date of adoption of this resolution with respect to the Series 2010B Bonds (the “Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement”), between the City, the Borrower and the Underwriter are hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreements shall be substantially in the forms on file with the City with such omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 6. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the City contained in this resolution or contained in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, or other documents referred to therein, shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements shall be binding upon the City. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers, and privileges conferred, and duties and liabilities imposed, upon the City by the provisions of this resolution or of the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, or other documents referred to therein, shall be exercised or performed by the City, or by such officers, board, body, or agency as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, or other documents referred to above, shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement of any officer, agent, or employee of the City in that person’s individual capacity, and neither the members of the City Council nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. Section 7. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person, firm, or corporation other than the City, the Borrower, the holders of the Bonds, and the Trustee any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof or of the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, or any provision thereof; this resolution, the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, and all of their provisions, being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City and the holders from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution and the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture, and the Borrower to the extent expressly provided in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement. Section 8. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, but this resolution, the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement shall be construed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. The terms and conditions set forth in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, the pledge of revenues derived from the Project, the pledge of collateral derived from the Project, the creation of the funds provided for in the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture, the provisions relating to the application of the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds pursuant to and under the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture, and the application of said revenues, collateral, and other money are all commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the City contained in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement shall not affect the commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the City to create such funds and to apply said revenues, other money, and proceeds of the Bonds for the purposes, in the manner, and according to the terms and conditions fixed in the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture, it being the intention hereof that such commitments on the part of the City are as binding as if contained in this resolution separate and apart from the Series 2010A Indenture and the Series 2010B Indenture. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution Section 9. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof. All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota, relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, and the other documents referred to therein to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to the issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, and the other documents referred to above have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. Section 10. The City Council, officers of the City, and attorneys and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution and the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, and the other documents referred to therein for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement, and the other documents referred to above, and this resolution. Section 11. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements, or other documents which are required by the above- referenced documents, or any other certificates or documents which are deemed necessary by bond counsel to evidence the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, the Series 2010A Indenture, the Series 2010B Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Financing Agreement, the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, the Series 2010A Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Series 2010B Bond Purchase Agreement (collectively, the “Agreements”), or the other documents referred to in this resolution, or to evidence compliance with applicable provisions of the Code, as amended; and all such agreements or representations when made shall be deemed to be agreements or representations, as the case may be, of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the certificates, agreements, and other documents may include: (i) a tax or arbitrage certificate of the City; (ii) a tax compliance agreement between the City and the Borrower; and (iii) an Information Return for Tax- Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038 (Rev. June 2010). The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby designated and authorized to take such other administrative action as is permitted or required by the Agreements. The officers of the City, bond counsel, other attorneys, engineers, and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Subject: Urban Park – Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bonds and Consider Final Resolution contained in the Bonds, the Agreements, and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor of the City is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, any other member of the City Council or any officer of the City delegated the duties of the Mayor shall be authorized to act in his capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City with full force and effect, which execution or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. If for any reason the City Manager of the City is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such documents may be executed by any member of the City Council or any officer of the City delegated the duties of the City Manager, with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the City. Section 12. The City hereby authorizes Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as bond counsel of the City, to prepare, execute, and deliver its approving legal opinions with respect to the Bonds. Section 13. The City has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statements or other disclosure documents relating to the offer and sale of the Bonds (the “Official Statements”), and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein, including the appendices thereto, and the City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of such information. Subject to the foregoing, the City hereby consents to the distribution and the use by the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Official Statements, in the forms now on file with the City. The Official Statements are the sole material consented to by the City for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. Section 14. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, this 20th day of September, 2010. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk SA140-102 (JU) 374571v.2 Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 6b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing - Wine & 3.2 Liquor License – Wok in the Park. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve application from A Wok in the Park, LLC, dba Wok in the Park for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license to be located at 3005 Utah Avenue South with the license term through March 1, 2011. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Wok in the Park? BACKGROUND: The City received an application from Wok in the Park, LLC, for an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license. The premises consist of approximately 1,200 square feet with seating for 76 persons. The new Wok in the Park restaurant has been open for business since September 1, 2010 and will offer an Asian cuisine lunch and dinner menu for dine-in or take out. The ownership consists of three co-owning partners and store managers - Hannah Elizabeth Johnson, Charis Joan Fishbein, and Grace Esther Johnson. All three owners of Wok in the Park are prior affiliates/employees of Thandh Do which had previously occupied the premise and are now located across the street at 8028 Minnetonka Boulevard. The Police Department has conducted a full investigation and has found nothing that would warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s office should Council members wish to review the information prior to the public hearing. The required public hearing legal notice was published in the Sun Sailor Newspaper on September 2, 2010. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The investigation fee for a new applicant is $500. The yearly license fee is $2,750 (pro-rated). VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Agenda Item #: 6d Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for 2011 and set Second Reading for October 4, 2010. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees charged for programs and services called for by ordinance? BACKGROUND: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulation(s) and to make sure our business costs are covered for such service. Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the attached ordinance. A public hearing notice was published September 9, 2010 informing interested persons of the city’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule. Next steps: The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 4, 2010. If approved, the fee increases will be effective January 1, 2011. Staff will be presenting proposed 2011 liquor fees for approval by resolution at the November 15, 2010 City Council Meeting. Utility fees for 2011 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates are scheduled for approval later this year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Each Department Director has reviewed Appendix A of the City Code. Fire Department, Information Resources, Police Department are recommending no increase in their fees for 2011. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 2 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees The Inspections and Community Development Departments have each proposed fee increases which are the shown in Appendix A (attached). Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases reflect the increased costs of providing services. The proposed fee increases have been incorporated into the proposed 2011 budget. Community Development Department Community Development is proposing one change of additional language to clarify installation of permanent signs to include signs with footings and signs without footings and separate fees for each. Inspections Department Permit and license fees proposed by the Inspections Department were increased when appropriate consistent with the “fee for service” program philosophy. A combination of related costs, recent increases, comparative fees in other cities, and customer resistance to continual increasing charges are also factored into the process. As a result of this evaluation, one fee is recommended to decrease, some fees are proposed to remain unchanged, and others increased the suggested 2-3% inflationary adjustment. Some fees increase slightly more as a result of rounding up the fee to the nearest $5.00. One example is the $130 Certificate of Property Maintenance Condominium Permit fee. Inspections is proposing to increase the fee by $5.00 or 4% alternatively; a 3% adjustment would have resulted in an odd fee amount of $133.90. Food and Beverage Licenses The net effect of all proposed fee changes for Food and Beverage Licenses and an increase in the number of licensed establishments, will result in an increase of $12,635 in projected 2011 revenue. Food Class Low The Food Class Low license is issued for prepackage food sales and minor food preparation only. Examples of businesses would be gas stations selling pre-packaged food; coffee and pastry sales; or a pre-school providing pre-packaged food or milk from individual cartons to the children. The proposal for 2011 is to decrease the current license fee from $300 to $225. Inquiries were received as to the seemingly high cost of our Food Low license fee of $300, resulting from a older time spent analysis and inflationary creep over the years. Staff time spent on the average facility for licensing, inspection, and follow-up has not been as intensive as the fee would indicate. As part of the review the average amount of time spent was examined on each licensed facility and surveys were conducted with several comparable cities, discovering 2010 fees ranging from $85 to $200. Decreasing this fee brings the charge in line with the services being provided to the average business with this class of license. Food Class High + and Large Grocery Store (25,000 sq ft+) The Food Class High license is for establishments with onsite food preparation and dining services along with certain sized grocery stores. A 6% increase is proposed due to the significant amount of time utilized at these larger, more complex establishments by inspectors for routine annual inspection, follow-up inspections, and complaint investigations occurring over the year. Other cities City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 3 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees have various methods to calculate fees on this type of a facility, making fee schedule comparisons difficult. Staff contacted Minnetonka and used two similar grocery stores in each city to compare the proposed license fee. Mechanical Competency Card What initially appears to be a rather large 20% increase from the current fee of $25 to the proposed fee of $30 actually amounts to only a $1.67 per year since the Card is valid for 3 years. A current code requirement for contractors renewing the Competency Card is for the cardholder to complete 6 hours of continuing education. The fee covers not only the administrative time to process the renewal but also includes free continuing education classes the City staff provides every year on Mechanical Code requirements and updates. VISION CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 4 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees ORDINANCE NO. ____-10 ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set by this ordinance for calendar year 2011. Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code and shall replace those fees adopted November 2, 2009 by Ordinance No. 2378-09 which is hereby rescinded. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Administrative Penalties First Violation $25 Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Amendment Filing Fee Single Family $50 Other Uses $120 Amendment Time Extension $75 Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000 Conditional Use Permit $2,000 Major Amendment $2,000 Minor Amendment $1,000 Fence Permit Installation $15 Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50 Official Map Amendment $500 Parking Lot/Driveway Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,000 Final PUD $2,000 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250 PUD - Major Amendment $2,000 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,000 Registration of Land Use $50 Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 5 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Special Permits Major Amendment $2,000 Minor Amendment $1,000 Subdivision Dedication Park Dedication (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 percent of current market value of the unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $500 plus $50 per lot Final Plat $300 Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300 Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $115 per caliper inch Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor Variances Commercial $500 Residential $300 Zoning Appeal $300 Zoning Letter $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour Tent Permit Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75.00 Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75.00 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 6 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $150 All Other Buildings $220 Building Moving Permit $500 Business Licenses Billboards $140 per billboard Commercial Entertainment $270 $275 Courtesy Bench $45 Dog Kennel $140 $145 Environmental Emissions $305 $310 Lodging (Hotel/Motel) Building Fee $155 $160 Unit Fee $9 $9.25 Massage Therapy Establishment $325 Massage Therapy License $95 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $25 Pawnbroker License Fee $2,000 Per Transaction Fee $1.50 Investigation Fee $1,000 Penalty $50 per day Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500 High Impact $4,500 Limited Impact $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $485 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $200 $205 Parking Ramp $150 $155 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $280 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $440 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,070 above 200,000 sq ft $1,280 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 7 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Certificate of Property Maintenance Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $50 Change in Ownership Single Family Dwellings $210 $215 Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $295 Condominium Unit $130 $135 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building + $12 per unit All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $280 $290 5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $440 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,070 above 200,000 sq. ft $1,280 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance $60 Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $42.25 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $42.25 plus $1.80 for each additional(or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $69.25 plus $14.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $391.25 plus $10.10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $643.75 plus $7.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $993.75 plus $5.60 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,233.75 plus $4.75 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,608.75 plus $4.25 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 8 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $42.50 $43 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 Single family, one appliance $42.50 $43 Erosion Control Permit Application and Review $150 ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system install or repair) $125 Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $42.50 $43 + 1.75% of job valuation Mechanical Permit (cont'd.) Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $60.00 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $60.00 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $42.50 $43 Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $42.50 $43 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $42.50 $43 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $42.50 $43 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $71.50 $73 Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $25 $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $95 Solid Waste $195 Tree Maintenance $85 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 2 year $37 3 year $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 Interim License $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 9 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Penalty for no license $40 Food and Beverage Equipment Permit Installation (used equipment valued as new) $50 + 1.75% permit valuation Plan Review Fee 35% of permit fee Food and Beverage Licenses Class E (multi-site educational facilities) $2,800 High + & large grocery store (25,000 sq ft +) $1,250 $1,325 High + small grocery store (to 25,000 sq ft) $900 $925 Class H (establishment with on-site preparation of food and dining service) $850 Class L - (prepackaged food) $300 $225 Class M - (coffee shop) $580 Class V - (food vending machine) $15 Temporary Food Service 3+ days $150 1 to 3 days $100 Concession - Seasonal (Class S) $180 Prepackaged Food Only $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections) $130 Insurance Requirements Circus $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 Transfer of License (new ownership) $75 Plan Review Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 10 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee Public Sanitary Facilties - Swimming Pools, Whirlpool, Sauna (Dry or Steam), Public Bath or Shower, Training Beds or Similar Facilities Class I $800 $820 Class II $440 $450 Class III $280 $285 Rental Housing License Single Family Unit $95 per dwelling unit Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $145 per duplex Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative $75 per unit Multiple Family Per Building $155 $160 Per Unit $10 $10.25 Temporary Noise Permit $60 Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 Commercial Film Production Application $80 Petting Zoos $60 Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110 Vehicle Decals Catering $75 Solid Waste $20 Tree Maintenance & Removal $8 POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $25 2nd offense w/in year $40 3rd offense w/in year $50 4th offense w/in year $75 Boarding Per Day $25 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100 Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 False Alarm First $0 Each subsequent in same year $100 City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 11 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees Late payment fee 10% Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $10 per 10 linear feet Administrative Fee (all permits) $50 Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $30 each Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording Cost Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 No off-street parking available No Charge Off-street parking available $125 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300 Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit Administrative Fee (all permits) $50 Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $50 per hole Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2011. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 6d) Page 12 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _____-10 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011 This ordinance sets 2011 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2011. Adopted by the City Council October 4, 2010 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 14, 2010 Meeting Date: September 20, 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: Resolution to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Resolution to become a member of ICLEI’s – Local Governments for Sustainability’s and begin undertaking five milestones to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions in the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City move forward with membership in ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, thereby providing the opportunity and tools necessary to advance the City’s environmental initiatives including measuring the communities overall carbon footprint? BACKGROUND: This report was distributed to Council at the August 23, 2010 Study Session with follow-up discussion during the environmental update at the September 13, 2010 Study Session. At the Study Session of September 13, the Council expressed support to have the community’s carbon footprint measured. One councilmember expressed support of this first step noting that the future steps include not only targets for reduction but measures to offset carbon generation by implementing alternative measures. The draft resolution has been revised to include this direction. This effort evolved from the City’s E-group and the City’s participation in the GreenStep City Pilot program. The GreenStep pilot cities have worked with the LHB consulting team to jointly find a way to calculate the carbon footprint for each of the cities involved. The goal is for all five pilot cities to measure their carbon footprints and share information with one another. Falcon Heights and Edina have already begun efforts to measure their carbon footprints. The other two pilot cities, Victoria and Bloomington, are not ready to more forward at this time. Reason for Measuring the Community’s Carbon Footprint. An important step in being more energy efficient and reducing our carbon footprint is knowing what our carbon footprint is today. Measuring our community’s carbon footprint creates a baseline from which efforts to reduce the carbon footprint can be measured. It provides a method to evaluate our efforts and make comparisons with other communities and their programs. Measuring our carbon footprint will: • Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money, mitigate climate change, and manage risk in the face of future GHG emission regulations and oil insecurity. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Subject: Resolution to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability • Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and increasing awareness of activities that can reduce carbon footprints. • Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others. A necessary component of gathering and analyzing the data is an inventory-related software tool to manage the complex variety of uses. Rather than invest in costly software, the proposed approach is to access ICLEI software. The software makes it possible to comprehensively measure all forms of energy use in the community and converts energy uses like heating (BTUs), Kilowatt hours, solid waste tonnage and vehicle miles traveled to understandable and comparable units. ICLEI’s proprietary software can only be accessed for cities that are members of ICLEI. If the City proceeds, staff will hire LHB consulting to use the ICLEI software to calculate our carbon footprint and put in place the procedures so that we can largely do future measurements ourselves. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability Membership. ICLEI is an international association of local, national and regional government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development. They provide technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level. Their basic premise is that locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives. ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at an inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. They have over 1200 cities, towns, counties, and their associations as members today. As a non-profit association, ICLEI receives financial support for its operations and its programs from a membership fees and project funders. To join ICLEI the city needs to adopt a resolution stating we will join as members and pledge to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness of the causes and impacts of climate change. The resolution also says we will undertake what ICLEI calls the “five milestones” to work to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. The five milestones are essentially basic steps you would use to implement any change. It is a performance-based approach that incorporates these five steps: 1. Establish a Baseline 2. Set a Target 3. Develop a Local Action Plan 4. Implement the Local Action Plan, 5. Measure Results The draft resolution is attached to this report. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Subject: Resolution to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability The City’s E Group has reviewed the merits of joining ICLEI and staff recommends the city join ICLEI and move forward with the measurement of its carbon foot print. The cost of membership is $600 per year. Membership can be reviewed after the first year to determine if continued membership is appropriate. Other nearby cities that are ICLEI members includes both Golden Valley and Edina. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of membership in ICLEI is $600 annually. The cost of LHB conducting a carbon “footprint” assessment for the City is $7,000. GreenStep Cities and Urban Land Institute are pursuing assistance to help the cities of Edina, Falcon Heights, Victoria and St. Louis Park with funding the assessment. In the event that funding does not become available the maximum cost to the city would be $7,000 for the assessment and $600 for membership. The Housing Rehab Fund’s Green Remodeling Pilot’s unspent budgeted funds would be the funding source. VISION CONSIDERATION: City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Participation in ICLEI and the carbon baseline assessment will be valuable tools to assist the City in demonstrating and promoting its environmental stewardship. Attachments: Resolution to Join ICLEI Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, E Group Vice-Chair and Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Subject: Resolution to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING UNDERTAKING ICLEI’S FIVE MILESTONES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE, GREENHOUSE GAS AND AIR POLLUTION EMMISSIONS IN THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. WHEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce consumption of energy and natural resources and increase energy efficiency and offsetting carbon generation by implementing alternative measures provide multiple local benefits by decreasing air pollution, reducing energy expenditures, and saving money for the local government, its businesses, and its residents; and WHEREAS, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is a membership association of local governments committed to advancing sustainable development and conserving resources for our future and the future of generations; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota will join ICLEI as a Full Member and pledges to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will undertake ICLEI’s five milestones to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions throughout the community, and specifically: • Conduct an carbon footprint inventory of government operations and the community as a whole to determine of the energy, water, refrigerant, solid waste, and transit use resources being used in the jurisdiction, • Establish a greenhouse gas emissions target reflective of the energy and resources used, • Develop an action plan with both existing and future actions, which when implemented will reduce energy, water, refrigerant, solid waste and fuel to meet the target, • Implement the action plan, and • Monitor and report progress. City Council Meeting of September 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Subject: Resolution to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park requests assistance from ICLEI as it progresses through these milestones. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 20, 2010 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk