HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/10/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
OCTOBER 18, 2010
6:00 p.m. Ribbon Cutting – Ellipse on Excelsior Public Art
At the Ellipse on Excelsior Boulevard & France Avenue.
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Water Rate Study
Written Reports
2. Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Update
3. Ribbon Cutting – Ellipse on Excelsior Public Art
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 20, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series
2010A and Series 2010B.
Recommended Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms,
covenants, and directions for the issuance of approximately $3,495,000 TIF Revenue
Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A.
• Motion to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms,
covenants, and directions for the issuance of approximately $935,000 TIF Revenue
Note (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010B.
7b. Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution approving the Fifth
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority and Union Land II LLC, KAN & Associates, LLC,
Webster Group, LLC and Camerata LLC.
Meeting of October 18, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
(EDA Meeting cont.)
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes September 20, 2010
3b. City Council Minutes September 20, 2010
3c. Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
3d. Special Study Session October 4, 2010
3e. City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
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 - On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license – Applebee’s
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve on-sale
intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales to Apple Minnesota, LLC, dba Applebee’s
Neighborhood Grill & Bar located at 8332 Highway 7 within Knollwood Mall in St.
Louis Park for the license term through March 1, 2011.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of October 18, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2nd Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amendments to
Chapter 15, Section 15-8 requiring organizations to contribute to a 10% Contribution
Fund with exemptions for those organizations who expend 100% of their lawful purpose
expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park and for those organizations where lawful
gambling activity occurs on premises owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation, and
Section 15-9 increasing the local gambling tax to 1.25%, and to approve summary
publication.
• Or, alternatively and in lieu of a 1.25% gambling tax, approve attached alternate
ordinance requiring a flat fee amount of $3,000 per location or three percent
(3%) of gross profits, whichever is less.
8b. 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Recommended Action:
• Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending and restating Ordinance No.
2244-03 imposing a franchise fee on Xcel Energy and setting the Second Reading for
November 1, 2010.
• Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending and restating Ordinance No.
2245-03 imposing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy and setting second reading
for November 1, 2010.
8c. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 8-33 for Business License Fees and
Adopting Sections 8-333 and 8-334 regarding Multi-family Rental Licensing Provisions
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance, approve
summary and authorize publication.
8d. Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing filing of application and
execution of agreement to redevelop the Dakota Park baseball and fastpitch softball fields
and surrounding facilities under the provisions of the Hennepin Youth Sports Program.
8e. Change Order #6 to City Contract 79-09, St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center (MSC)
Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
Recommended Action: Motion to approve Change Order #6 to Contract 79-09 MSC
Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
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 October 18, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt second reading of ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to political signs
contained in the agenda materials, and approve the summary ordinance contained in the
agenda materials for publication.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer
service lines at 3039 Alabama Avenue So., St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-21-0050.
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at
2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0042.
4d. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of $121,144.30, including
Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $11,500.00, for Park Place Boulevard Improvement
Project, City Project No. 2007-1101 - Contract No. 72-08.
4e. Adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 10-092, adopted on September 7, 2010,
approving designation of nonconservation land shown on classification list ‘‘1528 C/NC’’ by
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County.
4f. Adopt Resolution supporting Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant application to
Hennepin County.
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,800.00 and accepting
completion of the earth work for the 2008 redevelopment project at Fern Hill Park with G L
Contracting, Inc., Project No. 20080070, City Contract No. 112-08.
4h. Adopt resolution ordering the abatement of the hazardous excavation condition located at
2837 Ottawa Avenue South.
4i. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010.
4j. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes September 1, 2010..
4k. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 18, 2010.
4l. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Water Rate Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this study session discussion is to consider potential changes to the City’s water rate
structure based on an analysis performed by city staff and Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc.
(PCE). Staff’s goal for Monday’s study session is to present and discuss several different water rate
structure options including funding needs related to possible policy changes and future capital
projects. Staff proposes to continue this discussion at the October 25th study session relating to the
budget.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
As the Council reviews the information presented staff has raised the following policy questions:
• What rate structure option does Council prefer to use to plan for operations and future
capital expenses?
• Is there another rate structure Council would like staff to evaluate?
• Does the City Council want to consider assuming ownership of water service lines from
the water main to the right of way line?
BACKGROUND:
History: This is a continued discussion from the January 25 Study Session wherein Council heard:
o the Ehler’s and Associates 2009 utility rate study determined the water utility has funding
challenges that will require rate increases of about 7% annually for the foreseeable future
under the current rate structure to improve this fund’s overall financial position. The water
fund has an aggressive capital improvement plan and generally functions on a pay as you go
basis. (In the past rates were not increased on a consistent basis, or as aggressively as they
needed to be, in order to allow the fund to pay for capital without issuing debt.) One other
item to note, this fund is used to cover significant expenses for mitigation that relate to the
Reilly Tar Super Fund site.
o the City of St. Louis Park has relatively low utility debt outstanding per capita when
compared to some other communities. This amount includes the $4 million bond issue for
the Municipal Service Center undertaken in 2008. Even factoring this in, the City of St.
Louis Park still is very favorable in terms of its debt.
o the City of St. Louis Park is utilizing less than 2% of its available bonding capacity that is
applicable to the Legal Debt Margin. This places the City in a sound financial position to
issue more debt based on Council direction in the future if the need arises.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Water Rate Study
o the City of St. Louis Park could utilize a hybrid financing approach consisting of issuing
debt early on and then utilizing a pay as you go method in future years.
o that time be allowed for staff to analyze water usage and rates, particularly for large water
users, before significant long term rate changes are decided. Staff felt that a more thorough
analysis and information sharing with Council was necessary to provide for a more informed
policy decision and subsequent rate structure that is effective, equitable, competitive, and
defensible for the long-term.
2010 Water Rate Study: Since last January, staff has:
o determined past actual water system usage (residential, commercial, irrigation) Table 1 below.
o determined past actual water system costs - Table 2 below.
o updated the water system Capital Improvement Program.
Along with the information listed above staff retained PCE to perform a water rate study using the
Base-Extra Capacity method recommended by the American Water Works Association. PCE
summarized their study results in a letter dated September 10, 2010 (attached); a full copy of the PCE
Study is available for Council viewing if desired. Relevant information and excerpts from the PCE
study are shown immediately below. The following criteria or assumptions were used for this study:
o achieve a cash balance of 35% of total annual costs by 2019
o Operation and Maintenance expenses projected to inflate at an annual rate of 3% thru 2019
o Continue using DNR rate guidelines (inclining block rates for conservation purposes)
o Assume users pay for their actual respective costs (residential, commercial, and irrigation)
o Minnesota Department of Health fees identified and dealt with separately
Table 1
Water Usage
Actual
Customer Classification 2006 2007 2008 2009
Residential
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 1,268,266 1,325,336 1,210,601 1,280,651
Percent of Total Use 64 64 61 63
No. of Connections* 12,801 12,799 12,808 12,902
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 99 104 95 100
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 653,196 652,346 692,759 625,484
Percent of Total Use 33 32 35 31
No. of Connections* 878 879 897 873
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 744 742 772 716
Irrigation
Water Sold (1000 gallons) 70,348 77,786 93,454 135,230
Percent of Total Use 4 4 5 7
No. of Connections* 112 116 118 148
Average Connection Use (1000 gallons)** 628 671 792 914
Total Water Sold (1000 gallons) 1,991,810 2,055,467 1,996,814 2,041,365
Percent Change 3.20% -2.85% 2.23%
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Water Rate Study
Table 2
Water Utility Expenses
Actual Budget
Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Operation and Maintenance
Administrative Costs $ 413,353 $ 459,583 $ 453,860 $ 612,858 $ 510,190
Water Treatment Production Cost $ 980,491 $ 999,783 $1,083,129 $1,131,710 $1,177,500
Distribution System Costs $ 468,313 $ 692,116 $ 772,257 $1,053,287 $1,008,256
Total Operating Expenses $1,862,157 $2,151,482 $2,309,246 $2,797,855 $2,695,946
Debt Service (P+I) from Revenue Bonds $ - $ - $ 205,867 $ 307,528 $ 361,099
Total Debt Services $ - $ - $ 205,867 $ 307,528 $ 361,099
Transfers $ 506,965 $ 538,882 $ 533,656 $ 584,000 $ 610,652
Total Transfers $ 506,965 $ 538,882 $ 533,656 $ 584,000 $ 610,652
Reilly $ 461,787 $ 472,565 $ 455,372 $ 510,166 $ 510,166
Total Reilly $ 461,787 $ 472,565 $ 455,372 $ 510,166 $ 510,166
Capital Expenses (CIP) $ 925,060 $1,289,893 $1,421,419 $1,159,051 $1,255,000
Total Capital Expenses $ 925,060 $1,289,893 $1,421,419 $1,159,051 $1,255,000
Total Expenses $3,755,969 $4,452,822 $4,925,560 $5,358,600 $5,432,863
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Water Rate Study
Table 3
PCE Fixed, Commodity, and Pass Thru
Costs and Projected Rates
Description
Fixed
Commodity
(usage)
Pass Thru
Total
2009 Actual Costs:
O & M (personnel and meters) $ 1,089,919 $ 1,621,734 $ 86,202 $ 2,797,855
Debt Service - $ 307,528 - $ 307,528
Transfers $ 584,000 - - $ 584,000
Reilly $ 410,166 $ 100,000 - $ 510,166
Capital - $ 1,159,051 - $ 1,159,051
Total 2009 Actual Costs $ 2,084,085 $ 3,188,313 $ $86,202 $ 5,358,600
Allocated Costs and Projected Rates:
Residential
Meter Equivalents - - - 13,494
Water sold (gal) - - - 1,280,651
Allocated Commodity Costs $ 2,110,022 - $ 2,110,022
Commodity Rate ($/1,000 gal) $ 1.64 - $ 1.64
Allocated Fixed Costs $ 1,732,630 $ 1,732,630
Fixed Rate - 3/4” meter equivalent ($/Qtr) $ 32.10 - - $ 32.10
MDH Fee ($/Qtr) - - $ 1.55 $ 1.55
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Meter Equivalents - - - 2,127
Water sold (gal) - - - 625,484
Allocated Commodity Costs - $ 841,558 - $ 841,558
Commodity Rate ($/1,000 gal) - $ 1.34 - $ 1.34
Allocated Fixed Costs $ 273,107 - - $ 273,107
Fixed Rate - 3/4” meter equivalent ($/Qtr) $ 32.10 - - $ 32.10
MDH Fee ($/Qtr) - - $ 1.55 $ 1.55
Irrigation
Meter Equivalents - - - 611
Water sold (gal) - - - 135,230
Allocated Commodity Costs - $ 236,734 - $ 236,734
Commodity Rate ($/1,000 gal) - $ 1.74 - $ 1.74
Allocated Fixed Costs $ 78,452 - - $ 78,452
Fixed Rate - 3/4” meter equivalent ($/Qtr) $ 32.10 - - $ 32.10
MDH Fee ($/Qtr) - - $ 1.55 $ 1.55
Total Allocated Costs $ 2,084,189 $ 3,188,313 $ $86,202 $ 5,358,600
A basic finding from the study is that the fixed costs the City experiences to provide water to its
customer is not covered by the fixed rate the City charges its customers. As a result, user fees pay for
fixed costs. The PCE study essentially recommends the city increase its fixed rate significantly to
better cover fixed costs as well as retain the concept of residential 3 block inclining rates
(conservation rates). Separate commercial and irrigation rates are also recommended. Based on this,
rates for 2011 have been recommended by PCE - please see attachment: Table 4 - PCE
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Water Rate Study
Recommended Rates for 2011. Finally, the PCE Study projects these rates should not have to be
raised thru 2019 based on the information used in their study. Staff comment: although this is the
consultant’s statement, we need to be careful about setting an expectation of no rate changes in the
future due to unknowns.
Council Planning for the Future: It may not be achievable to adjust the rates as recommended by
PCE at one time so staff has developed several financially viable alternative rate structures that
Council may want to consider. In addition, the following capital projects are not in our current
CIP, but may become necessary in the near future and could add to utility costs:
1. Meter reading system replacement - approximate cost of $3,000,000 in 2016
2. Reilly Improvements at WTP #6 - approximate cost of $2,190,000 - date uncertain
3. Hwy 100 Reconstruction Improvements - approximate cost of $3,000,000 - 2016
In addition, interest has been shown in the city possibly assuming ownership of water service lines to
the stop box at the right of way line. This policy change has the potential to add several hundred
thousand dollars to annual operating costs.
Table 16 – Rate Structure Options for Continued Future Financial Stability and Planning:
Table 16 (attached) compares three optional rate structures to the PCE recommended rates as well as
the current rate structure. The rates shown in the green highlighted columns in table 16 reflect
additional costs associated with the meter reading system replacement mentioned directly above; the
rates in the orange highlighted columns reflect all the additional costs above along with $600,000
per year for service line ownership.
Based on the following criteria, the rate options described below have been ranked from 1 to 5 with
number 1 best meeting the criteria. (Please note these rankings are for discussion purposes as it
relates to meeting financial goals for this fund and do not reflect other factors the Council may wish
to consider as it sets utility rates):
- Rates minimize revenues collected over the long term (lowest long term cost to property
owners)
- Revenue stability (vs. volatility): rates minimize financial impacts due to weather / climate
changes, conservation implications, land use / business changes, economic volatility, etc.
- Revenue dependability: rates minimize financial impacts due to conservation implications,
land use / business changes, etc.
- Equity: rates are structured to cover the costs of property owners actually using the system
and the water (user pays concept).
- Fixed costs are covered by the fixed rates.
The rate options can be described as follows:
o Current Rate Structure: simply inflates the existing rates (Ehlers strategy) from 5.25% to
8.6% per year thru 2019; includes Tier 1 - 3 residential rates as previously planned. It will
be necessary to bond from $3.5 to $10 million dollars during this time to implement the
additional projects above and to assume ownership of water service lines to the right of way
line. Rank - 5.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Subject: Water Rate Study
o Option 1 (PCE Study): increases the fixed rate in 2011 significantly (to $32.10/qtr),
reduces the commercial and irrigation rates to better reflect their actual costs, and includes
Tier 1 - 3 residential rates as previously planned. Consultant assumes that rate increases and
bonding will not be necessary thru 2019, if no additional costs are added in the future.
However, it will be necessary to bond for up to $7.7 million dollars and raise rates about 4%
annually during this time to implement the additional projects above and to assume
ownership of water service lines to the right of way line. Rank - 1.
o Option 2: increases the fixed rate in 2011 to 50% of the PCE recommended amount
($16.05/qtr), includes Tier 1 - 3 residential rates as previously planned, sets the commercial
rate the same as the Tier 1 residential rate, and sets the irrigation rate at the Tier 3 residential
rate as previously planned. Rate increases and bonding will be necessary thru 2019 regardless
of future costs; rate increases and bonds will be larger if costs are increased as described
above. The rates are adjusted upwards at differing rates to move towards the PCE structure
over time. Rank - 2.
o Option 3: increases the fixed rate in 2011 to 40% of the PCE recommended amount
($12.84/qtr), includes Tier 1 - 3 residential rates as previously planned, sets the commercial
rate the same as the Tier 1 residential rate, and sets the irrigation rate at the Tier 3 residential
rate as previously planned. Rate increases and bonding will be necessary thru 2019 regardless
of future costs; rate increases and bonds will be larger if costs are increased as described
above. Annual rate increases thru 2019 will be larger than those in Option 2 since the
Option 3 fixed rate is set lower. The rates are adjusted upwards at differing rates to move
towards the PCE structure over time. Rank 3.
o Option 4: increases the fixed rate in 2011 to 50% of the PCE recommended amount
($16.05/qtr), includes Tier 1 - 3 residential rates as previously planned, sets the commercial
rate the same as the Tier 1 residential rate, and sets the irrigation rate at the Tier 3 residential
rate as previously planned then simply inflates those rates from 2.75% to 5.6% per year thru
2019. It will be necessary to bond from $1.25 to $9.2 million dollars during this time to
implement the additional projects above and to assume ownership of water service lines to
the right of way line. Since the rates are projected to inflate uniformly, they will not move
towards the PCE recommended structure over time. Rank - 4.
Rate Impacts: In the past Council has requested information indicating the impacts to property
owners associated with rate increases. Staff has created Table 14 (attached) showing quarterly
billings for typical users for the different rate structures described above. Staff has also provided a
summary comparing these rate options to neighboring cities (Table 15 attached).
Summary: Any of the rate structures described above are financially viable alternatives. However, if
future rate increases are questioned or challenged Options 1 (PCE), 2, and 3 provide for a rate
structure that is effective, equitable, competitive, and defensible over the long-term. Option 1
achieves this immediately; Option 2 realizes this in about 10 years while Option 3 may take 15 to 20
years to reach that point. The Current Rate Structure and Option 4 use
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Customers to subsidize residential users.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Subject: Water Rate Study
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This discussion is intended to provide options on how the City may adjust utility rates to ensure
long-range stability in operating and maintaining our water system without requiring dramatic rate
changes in any one year. Some of the suggested rates are also intended to provide equity in
distributing the cost of services to the respective users.
The suggested timeframe for discussing the matter is as follows:
• October 18 Study Session – continued discussion from January 25th
• October 25 – consider 2011 proposed utility rates
• November - December - adopt 2011 utility rates effective January 1, 2011
• December / January - communication of new rates
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus will be on:
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best
practices.
Attachments: PCE Study letter of September 10, 2010
Table 4 - PCE Recommended Rates for 2011
Table 16 - Rate Options and Scenarios
Table 14 - Typical Quarterly Billing Comparisons
Table 15 - Rate Comparison with Neighboring Cities
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Brian Swanson, Steven Heintz
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Water Rate Study
Page 8
Table 4
PCE Recommended Rates for 2011
Description Proposed Rates
Billing Unit 1000 gal. 750 gal.
Fixed Rate Per Quarter (5/8" and 3/4" Meter Equivalent)
All Customers ($/Quarter) $ 32.10 $ 32.10
MDH Fees ($/Quarter) $ 1.55 $ 1.55
Residential Customer
Block 1
Customers using 30,000 gallons or Less (0-40 units) Water Per Quarter
Block 1 Rate ($/1000 gallons) $ 1.64 $ 1.23
Block 2
Customers Using 30,001 - 60,000 gallons (41-80 units) Water Per Quarter
Assume 25% higher charge than Block 1 Rate
Block 2 Rate ($/1000 gallons) $ 2.04 $ 1.53
Block 3
Customers Using 60,001 gallons or More (above 81 units) Water Per Quarter
Assume 50% higher charge than Block 2 Rate
Block 3 Rate ($/1000 gallons) $ 3.07 $ 2.30
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Customer
Rate ($/1000 gallons) $ 1.34 $ 1.01
Irrigation Customer
Rate ($/1000 gallons) $ 1.74 $ 1.30
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Water Rate Study
Page 9
Table 16Water Rate StudyRate Options and ScenariosCurrentDescription Rates(2010) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019) (2011) (2019)666661313131313 (2)13 (2)13 (2)13 (2)13 (3)13 (3)13 (3)13 (3)13 (4)13 (4)13 (4)13 (4)1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal. 1000 gal.7.71$ 8.11$ 12.22$ 8.37$ 16.20$ 32.10$ 33.14$ 32.10$ 43.93$ 16.05$ 31.98$ 16.05$ 42.66$ 12.84$ 31.79$ 12.84$ 42.09$ 16.05$ 19.86$ 16.05$ 24.82$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.72$ 1.81$ 2.73$ 1.87$ 3.61$ 1.64$ 1.69$ 1.64$ 2.24$ 1.74$ 1.86$ 1.79$ 2.45$ 1.75$ 2.00$ 1.80$ 2.58$ 1.77$ 2.19$ 1.82$ 2.81$ Block 22.16$ 2.27$ 3.42$ 2.35$ 4.54$ 2.04$ 2.11$ 2.04$ 2.80$ 2.17$ 2.33$ 2.24$ 3.06$ 2.19$ 2.50$ 2.25$ 3.22$ 2.21$ 2.73$ 2.27$ 3.51$ Block 33.24$ 3.41$ 5.14$ 3.52$ 6.81$ 3.07$ 3.17$ 3.07$ 4.20$ 3.25$ 3.50$ 3.35$ 4.59$ 3.28$ 3.75$ 3.37$ 4.83$ 3.31$ 4.10$ 3.41$ 5.27$ Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Customer1.72$ 1.81$ 2.73$ 1.87$ 3.61$ 1.34$ 1.38$ 1.34$ 1.83$ 1.74$ 1.80$ 1.79$ 2.10$ 1.75$ 1.87$ 1.80$ 2.28$ 1.77$ 2.19$ 1.82$ 2.81$ Irrigation Customer2.43$ 3.41$ 5.14$ 3.52$ 6.81$ 1.74$ 1.79$ 1.74$ 2.38$ 3.25$ 3.50$ 3.35$ 4.59$ 3.28$ 3.75$ 3.37$ 4.83$ 3.31$ 4.10$ 3.41$ 5.27$ NANANANANATarget Cash Balance 12/31/2019 (35% of Total Expenses) NANANote:The water usage per blocks for residential customers is the same as what the City is using currently.The higher Charge for Block 2 and Block 3 is the same as what City is charging at present.The City does not intend to change the blocks at the present time.Notes:1- Green highlight indicates no additional capital or operational costs were included in the analysis. Orange highlight indicates all additional capital and operational costs are included in the analysis.2- Fixed costs are about 40% of SLP expenses so per AWWA the fixed rate should generate about 40% of SLP revenues (fairness, stability, and reliabilty). This is very much like an Availabilty Charge - the cost to be connected to the system regardless of amou - Option 1 does this immediately; commercial and irrigation rates are lowered to cover just their - the commercial / irrigation payers overpay from a fairness perspective. - Options 2 and 3 raises the fixed rate immediately and then moves all the rates towards the PCE structure but over a long period of time. The rates inflate differently over a period of time to accomplish this. - Option 4 raises the fixed rate immediately then simply inflates all rates the same thereafter. This keeps the rates simple, but is similar to the current structure and does not move rates toward the PCE model.3- The options with the least bonding needs are the cheapest long term options for residents.4- It appears the recommended rates from the PCE study best meet the "ranking" criteria listed below. Staff ranking of all the options based on the criteria below is provided for discussion purposes. - Rates minimize revenues collected over the long term (lowest long term cost to property owners). - Revenue stability (vs. volatility): rates minimize impacts due to weather / climate changes, conservation implications, land use / business changes, economic volatility, etc. - Revenue dependability: rates minimize impacts due to conservation implications, land use / business changes, etc. - Fairness: rates are structured to cover the costs of property owners actually using the system and the water (user pays concept). - Fixed costs are covered by the fixed rates. - 2,679,654$ 512342,550,375$ 2,251,527$ 2,706,485$ 2,134,078$ 2,629,195$ 2,184,450$ 2,646,072$ 2,201,155$ 2,679,654$ 2,176,012$ 5.60%2,181,473$ 2,687,717$ 2,082,927$ 2,790,524$ 2,133,695$ 2,479,858$ 2,250,322$ 2,638,578$ 2,212,989$ 5,190,000$ 5.25%8.60%0.00%4.00% 9%, 0.9%, and 0.45% 13%, 4%, and 2% 12%, 1.7%, and 0.85% 16%, 4.6%, and 3%5,190,000$ -$ 5,190,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ -$ 5,190,000$ -$ 5,190,000$ 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 3,500,000$ 4,800,000$ -$ 2,500,000$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ Rate ($/1000 gallons)Basic (Planned CIP)Cash Balance 12/31/2019Annual Rate Increase 2011 thru 201925% higher than Block 1 RateResidential Customer30,000 gal or Less (0-40 units) per QtrBlock 3 Rate ($/1000 gallons)60,001 gal or More (above 81 units) per QtrBlock 1Block 1 Rate ($/1000 gallons)30,001 - 60,000 gal (41-80 units) per QtrTable Reference NumberMDH Fees ($/Quarter)UnitFixed Rates Per Quarter (5/8" and 3/4" Meter Equivalent)All Customers ($/Quarter)Rate ($/1000 gallons)50% higher than Block 2 RateBlock 2 Rate ($/1000 gallons)Current Rate StructureOption 1 (PCE Study)Option 2RankingBonding for Basic (Planned) Capital ImprovementsAdditional Capital Improvements-$ 2.70%8,285,200$ 8,285,200$ Option 3Option 41,250,000$ 4,000,000$ Water Rate StudyOctober 8, 2010Tables 16 and 14 - Water Rates and Billing Options .xlsTable 16Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Water Rate Study Page 10
Table 14Water Rate StudyTypical Quarterly Billing Comparison With Existing and Possible RatesCurrent2010 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019 2011 2019ResidentialAverage use of 30,000 gallons Per Quarter (3/4 Inch Meter Size - Block 1)Existing Rates (2010)Rates Per 1000 gallons 1.72$ Fixed Charges Per Quarter 7.71$ Commodity Charges Per Quarter 51.60$ Total Per Quarter59.31$ Possible Rates (2011)Commodity Rates Per 1000 gallons (Block 1)1.81$ 2.73$ 1.87$ 3.61$ 1.64$ 1.69$ 1.64$ 2.24$ 1.74$ 1.86$ 1.79$ 2.45$ 1.75$ 2.00$ 1.80$ 2.58$ 1.77$ 2.19$ 1.82$ 2.81$ MDH Fees ($/Quarter)-$ -$ -$ -$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Fixed Charges Per Quarter8.11$ 12.22$ 8.37$ 16.20$ 32.10$ 33.14$ 32.10$ 43.93$ 16.05$ 31.98$ 16.05$ 42.66$ 12.84$ 31.79$ 12.84$ 42.09$ 16.05$ 19.86$ 16.05$ 24.82$ Commodity Charges Per Quarter54.30$ 81.90$ 56.10$ 108.30$ 49.20$ 50.70$ 49.20$ 67.20$ 52.20$ 55.80$ 53.70$ 73.50$ 52.50$ 60.00$ 54.00$ 77.40$ 53.10$ 65.70$ 54.60$ 84.30$ Total Per Quarter62.41$ 94.12$ 64.47$ 124.50$ 82.85$ 85.39$ 82.85$ 112.68$ 69.84$ 89.37$ 71.34$ 117.75$ 66.93$ 93.38$ 68.43$ 121.08$ 70.74$ 87.15$ 72.24$ 110.71$ Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter3.10$ 34.81$ 5.16$ 65.19$ 23.54$ 26.08$ 23.54$ 53.37$ 10.53$ 30.06$ 12.03$ 58.44$ 7.62$ 34.07$ 9.12$ 61.77$ 11.43$ 27.84$ 12.93$ 51.40$ % Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter5%59%9% 110% 40% 44% 40% 90% 18% 51% 20% 99% 13% 57% 15% 104% 19% 47% 22% 87%Commercial / Industrial Large User Existing Rates (2010)Rates Per 1000 gallons 1.72$ Fixed Charges Per Quarter (Assume 2 Inch Meter Size) 35.82$ Proposed Rates (2011)Rates Per 1000 gallons 1.81$ 2.73$ 1.87$ 3.61$ 1.34$ 1.38$ 1.34$ 1.83$ 1.74$ 1.80$ 1.79$ 2.10$ 1.75$ 1.87$ 1.80$ 2.28$ 1.77$ 2.19$ 1.82$ 2.81$ MDH Fees ($/Quarter)-$ -$ -$ -$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.55$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ 1.59$ Fixed Charges Per Quarter (Assume 2 Inch Meter Size)37.68$ 35.44$ 2,360.34$ 13,248.36$ 93.09$ 9,345.48$ 26,251.38$ 12,388.26$ 46.55$ 9,018.36$ 13,125.69$ 12,030.12$ 37.24$ 8,964.78$ 10,500.55$ 11,869.38$ 46.55$ 5,600.52$ 13,125.69$ 6,999.24$ Customer A - Average Use 42,260,000 gallons Per QuarterCharges Per Quarter with Existing Rate72,723$ Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates76,528$ 115,405$ 81,387$ 165,807$ 56,723$ 67,666$ 82,881$ 89,726$ 73,581$ 85,088$ 88,773$ 100,778$ 73,994$ 87,993$ 86,570$ 108,224$ 74,848$ 98,152$ 90,040$ 125,751$ Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter3,805$ 42,682$ 8,664$ 93,084$ (16,000)$ (5,057)$ 10,158$ 17,003$ 858$ 12,365$ 16,050$ 28,055$ 1,271$ 15,270$ 13,847$ 35,501$ 2,125$ 25,428$ 17,317$ 53,028$ % Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter5%59% 12% 128% -22% -7% 14% 23%1% 17% 22% 39%2% 21% 19% 49%3% 35% 24% 73%Customer B - Average Use 11,900,000 gallons Per QuarterCharges Per Quarter with Existing Rate20,504$ Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates21,577$ 32,522$ 24,613$ 56,207$ 16,041$ 25,769$ 42,199$ 34,167$ 20,754$ 30,440$ 34,428$ 37,022$ 20,864$ 31,219$ 31,922$ 39,003$ 21,111$ 31,663$ 34,785$ 40,440$ Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter1,073$ 12,019$ 4,110$ 35,704$ (4,463)$ 5,265$ 21,695$ 13,663$ 250$ 9,936$ 13,924$ 16,518$ 360$ 10,716$ 11,418$ 18,499$ 607$ 11,159$ 14,281$ 19,936$ % Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter5% 59% 20% 174% -22% 26% 106% 67%1% 48% 68% 81%2% 52% 56% 90%3% 54% 70% 97%Customer C - Average Use 6,140,000 gallons Per QuarterCharges Per Quarter with Existing Rate10,597$ Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates11,151$ 16,798$ 13,842$ 35,414$ 8,322$ 17,820$ 34,481$ 23,626$ 10,732$ 20,072$ 24,118$ 24,926$ 10,784$ 20,448$ 21,554$ 25,870$ 10,916$ 19,049$ 24,302$ 24,254$ Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter554$ 6,201$ 3,246$ 24,817$ (2,274)$ 7,224$ 23,884$ 13,029$ 135$ 9,475$ 13,521$ 14,329$ 187$ 9,852$ 10,958$ 15,274$ 319$ 8,452$ 13,705$ 13,658$ % Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter5%59% 31% 234% -21% 68% 225% 123%1% 89% 128% 135%2% 93% 103% 144%3% 80% 129% 129%Customer D - Average Use 3,400,000 gallons Per QuarterCharges Per Quarter with Existing Rate5,884$ Charges Per Quarter with Proposed Rates6,192$ 9,317$ 8,718$ 25,522$ 4,651$ 14,039$ 30,809$ 18,612$ 5,964$ 15,140$ 19,213$ 19,172$ 5,989$ 15,324$ 16,622$ 19,623$ 6,066$ 13,048$ 19,315$ 16,555$ Dollar Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter308$ 3,434$ 2,835$ 19,639$ (1,233)$ 8,155$ 24,925$ 12,728$ 80$ 9,256$ 13,329$ 13,288$ 105$ 9,441$ 10,738$ 13,739$ 182$ 7,164$ 13,431$ 10,671$ % Increase (Decrease) Per Quarter5% 58% 48% 334% -21% 139% 424% 216%1% 157% 227% 226%2% 160% 183% 234%3% 122% 228% 181%DescriptionBillingsCurrentOption 1 (PCE Study)Option 2Option 3Option 4Water Rate StudyOctober 8, 2010Tables 16 and 14 - Water Rates and Billing Options .xlsTable 14Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Water Rate Study Page 11
Table 15
Water Rate Study
Residential Water Rate Comparison with Neighboring Cities (Quarterly Billing)
City Population
Quarterly
Fixed Charge
7,500
Gallons
10,000
Gallons
15,000
Gallons
30,000
Gallons
45,000
Gallons
65,000
Gallons Fees Charged
Blaine 49,962 $ 5.50 $ 13.45 $ 16.10 $ 21.40 $ 39.52 $ 60.97 $ 89.57
$5.50/quarter meter charge;
$1.06/1,000 gal - 0-24,000 gal;
$1.43/1,000 gal - 24,000-150,000 gal;
$2.10/1,000 gal - Over 150,000 gal
Brooklyn Park 68,715 $ 3.30 $ 15.68 $ 19.80 $ 28.05 $ 52.80 $ 82.05 $133.05
$3.30/quarter fixed charge;
$1.65/1,000 gal - 0-40,000 gal;
$2.55/1,000 gal - 40,000-80,000 gal;
$3.30/1,000 gal - Over 80,000 gal
Eden Prairie 59,325 $ 7.50 $ 20.63 $ 25.00 $ 33.75 $ 60.00 $ 86.25 $121.25
$7.50/quarter service charge;
$1.75/1,000 gal
Edina 48,156 $ 13.48 $ 24.58 $ 28.28 $ 35.68 $ 59.80 $ 89.20 $155.81
$13.48/quarter meter charge;
$1.48/1000 gal - 0-26,000 gal.;
$1.96/1000 gal - 26,001-48,600 gal;
$3.07/1000 gal - over 48,600 gal
Golden Valley 20,281 $ 10.77 $ 42.12 $ 52.57 $ 73.47 $136.17 $198.87 $282.47
$6/quarter minimum fee;
$1.59/month water connection fee;
$4.18/1,000 gal - 1-79,000 gal;
$4.21/1,000 gal - Above 80,000
Hopkins 17,145 $ 1.59 $ 15.84 $ 20.59 $ 30.09 $ 58.59 $ 87.09 $125.09
$6.36/year state health fee;
$1.90/1000 gal
Maple Grove 55,278 $ 17.49 $ 26.49 $ 26.49 $ 30.99 $ 44.49 $ 66.99 $ 75.99
$12.60/quarter service charge;
$3.30/qtr water treatment surcharge;
$1.59/quarter state testing fee;
$9.00 minimum charge - first 10,000 gal;
$0.90/1000 gallons - each add'l 1,000 gal
Minnetonka 51,301 N/A $ 13.13 $ 17.50 $ 26.25 $ 53.75 $ 63.75 $123.75
$1.75/1000 gal - 0-25,000 gal;
$2.00/1000 gal - 25,001-40,000 gal;
$2.52/1000 gal - 40,001-70,000 gal;
$3.50/1000 gal - Over 70,001 gal
Plymouth * 70,238 $ 10.11 $ 19.26 $ 22.31 $ 29.19 $ 52.14 $ 86.09 $138.69
$3.37/month base charge;
$1.22/1000 gallons - 0-12,500 gal;
$1.53/1000 gal - 12,501-35,000 gal;
$2.63/1000 gal - Over 35,000 gal
Richfield 34,502 $ 6.59 $ 25.27 $ 31.49 $ 43.94 $ 82.54 $123.64 $182.19
$5/quarter service charge;
$1.59/quarter MN testing fee;
$2.49/1,000 gal - 0-25,000 gal;
$2.74/1,000 gal - 26,000-50,000 gal;
$2.99/1,000 gal - Over 50,000 gal
St. Louis Park
2010 44,896 $ 7.71 $ 20.61 $ 24.91 $ 33.51 $ 59.31 $ 91.71 $140.31
$7.71/quarter fixed charge;
$1.72/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.16/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.24/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
St. Louis Park
Current - 2011 44,896 $ 8.11 $ 21.69 $ 26.21 $ 35.26 $ 62.41 $ 96.46 $147.56
$8.11/quarter fixed charge;
$0.00/quarter health department fees;
$1.81/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.27/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.41/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
St. Louis Park
Option 1 (PCE) - 2011 44,896 $ 33.65 $ 45.95 $ 50.05 $ 58.25 $ 82.85 $113.45 $159.40
$32.10/quarter fixed charge;
$1.55/quarter health department fees;
$1.64/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.04/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.07/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
St. Louis Park
Option 2 - 2011 44,896 $ 17.64 $ 30.69 $ 35.04 $ 43.74 $ 69.84 $102.39 $151.19
$16.05/quarter fixed charge;
$1.59/quarter health department fees;
$1.74/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.17/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.25/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
St. Louis Park
Option 3 - 2011 44,896 $ 14.43 $ 27.56 $ 31.93 $ 40.68 $ 66.93 $ 99.78 $149.03
$12.84/quarter fixed charge;
$1.59/quarter health department fees;
$1.75/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.19/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.28/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
St. Louis Park
Option 4 - 2011 44,896 $ 17.64 $ 30.92 $ 35.34 $ 44.19 $ 70.74 $103.89 $153.59
$16.05/quarter fixed charge;
$1.59/quarter health department fees;
$1.77/1,000 - 0-30,000 gal;
$2.21/1,000 gal - 30,001-60,000 gal;
$3.31/1,000 gal - Above 60,000 gal
Note:
* Billed monthly. All other bill quarterly. The quarterly fixed charge is calculated using the monthly fixed charge multiplied by 3.
Water Rate Study
October 8, 2010
Table 15 ‐ Rate Comparison with Neighboring Cities.xlsx
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Water Rate Study
Page 12
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None needed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This report is an update for the City Council on direction given at the August 23, 2010 meeting to
proceed with determining what additional civic and/or recreational facilities residents would like to
see in our community. Please inform staff of any questions or comments you might have.
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council Study Session on August 23, 2010 staff presented a proposal for moving
forward on the exploration of creating additional civic and/or recreational facilities in the
community. Undertaking such an effort originates from the 2005/2006 Vision St. Louis Park
process and the resulting Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council.
To assure that any future improvements are grounded in strong community support and data that
demonstrates the problem we are trying to solve or the opportunity we are trying to address, Council
directed staff to move ahead with selecting a consulting firm to help develop a survey. This survey is
intended to build off the results of Vision and go much deeper in identifying specifically what is
missing in the community from a civic and or recreational facility perspective. Staff feels this is an
important first step to take. By having the community specifically identify what is missing will
provide the Council with good information on the types of facilities or amenities it might wish to
consider adding to the community. Once the City Council has this information, subsequent steps
can be taken to bring the communities desires to fruition.
UPDATE ON THE PROCESS:
Staff has sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek a qualified professional consultant to
construct a city-wide survey. The proposals are due on Monday, November 1, 2010. Once the
consultant has been selected, staff will work with them to develop questions to help asses what is
missing in our civic and recreation spaces.
At their September meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) reviewed the
comments from the Vision process. They created a list of themes that came out of Vision in the areas
of Civic space and community recreation facilities. Those themes will be given to the consultant to
use in creating questions.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Civic Space and Community Recreation Planning Update
The City Council asked the question about how they can be involved in this process. Staff would
like to bring the questions back to Council prior to finalizing the survey to be sure we have included
all the areas which should be addressed. We would also like the City Council’s help in encouraging
residents to complete the survey.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will bring the draft questions back to Council in late November or early December.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted Strategic
Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the
related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ribbon Cutting – Ellipse on Excelsior Public Art.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This report is intended to update the Council on the ribbon cutting for the
Windtrace Sculpture located at The Ellipse on Excelsior to be held on October 18 at 6 p.m. at The
Ellipse on Excelsior located at Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has worked with Bader Development and their Landscape Architect, Damon Farber and
Associates, to create a public art sculpture in the plaza of the development. A process similar to what
has been used in the past was used to select the art at this area. A committee made up of the
developer, representatives from the Minikahda Vista and Minikahda Oaks neighborhoods (Paul
Livdahl and Sue Ainsworth), a representative from Friends of the Arts (George Hagemann), a
member of the Planning Commission (Robert Kramer), a Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission member (George Hagemann served this role also), along with Planning and Parks and
Recreation staff interviewed four artists. Jack Becker from Forecast Public Artworks facilitated the
process and sent out the Request for Proposals (RFP) to artists included in his data base.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ART:
The selection panel chose Norman Andersen as the artist. Mr. Andersen is a Minneapolis based
artist who has worked on other sculptural projects within the Twin Cities area. He has created a
piece called Windtrace. Mr. Andersen has provided the following description of Windtrace.
“Windtrace focuses on the concept of the "ellipse" itself, which offers the perfection of the circle, but
the soul of something original and more comforting. It symbolizes regeneration, cyclical activity, and
timelessness. The form is not overwhelming to the site, but has enough scale, color, and motion to
stand as an inviting gateway to the area and establish a special identity to the Ellipse on Excelsior.
Windtrace is a dynamic sculpture using the forces of nature to provide change and variability. This
dimension expresses the vitality of the newly developing identity of St. Louis Park. The sculpture
offers real motion; it catches the eye and stimulates the imagination – a unique kinetic object with
intriguing motions – inviting the curious to have a closer look and enjoy a new neighborhood
landmark. The artwork is wind-powered and is most always in motion.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Ribbon Cutting – Ellipse Public Art
Windtrace scribes elliptical patterns in a fine-grained medium filling its base. These patterns vary
widely depending on the wind speed, direction, and consistency generating a smooth and regular
back and forth motion as side forces yield the elliptical traces. In the evening, illumination is
provided by highly efficient LED’s built into the sculpture itself. In addition to its interaction with
weather, sun, shadow, and people, the sculpture is further integrated into its architectural and
landscape environment through the extension of the ellipse motif into the paving of the plaza
beneath it.
Windtrace offers a graceful open (implied) arch 15 feet tall, ground by a low tub-like cylinder at its
base measuring four feet in diameter. Curved glass sheets four feet high are planned to encircle the
base, creating a protective barrier. At the top is an aluminum wind-wheel in the form of a pair of
winged maple seeds; it is mounted with ball bearings so that it rotates freely. The maple seed form at
the top of Windtrace self-governs its speed – rotating and swaying gracefully, but easily noticed and
enjoyed by anyone passing by. The sculpture will create an engaging and inviting outdoor gathering
place.”
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of developing and constructing the art pieces was $50,000 and was paid for by the
developer.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The development of public art is part of the St. Louis Park Strategic Directions - St. Louis Park is
committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City
initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Commissioners Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross,
Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes July 7, 2010
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve the
EDA Minutes of July 7, 2010 as presented.
The motion passed 6-0.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 6-0.
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2010
7a. Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty
Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC. EDA Resolution No. 10-16
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and explained that assignment and assumption of the
redevelopment contract is the next step to incorporate housing into the West End
development. He reviewed that two weeks ago the Council had approved an amendment to
the PUD for The Shops at West End to incorporate housing and in May had approved an
amendment and restated contract for private redevelopment with Duke Realty related to The
West End project contract to incorporate housing. Mr. Locke explained the property will be
under separate ownership for the housing component and have a separate developer. As
such, the overall redevelopment contract needs to be assigned, and the portions that apply to
this parcel need to be assigned to WEA LLC so it assumes the responsibilities of that
agreement. The resolution before the EDA would approve the assignment and assumption
of the redevelopment contract.
Commissioner Sanger asked what would happen, in a worst-case scenario, if WEA did not
follow through with building residential on a timely basis. She also asked if Duke Realty
retained some liability. Mr. Locke explained a double responsibility exists to meet the terms
of the redevelopment contract. It is a requirement of the redevelopment contract that WEA
and Duke build on the site at this time.
President Finkelstein stated his understanding that the City is not taking on any additional
responsibility or obligations through this assignment. Mr. Locke indicated that is correct.
President Finkelstein asked when they expect to break ground. Mr. Locke stated they plan
to close in October and are eager to start this fall but the contract gives a longer period of
time to break ground.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-16 approving an Assignment and Assumption of Redevelopment
Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and WEA, LLC related to The West
End project.
The motion passed 6-0.
8. Communications – None.
9. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to adjourn the
EDA meeting.
The motion passed 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: October 18, 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 18, 2010 through October 15,
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
10/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:40:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -9/18/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
11,868.28DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMEC GEOMATRIX INC
11,868.28
13,769.70DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANDERSEN, NORMAN
13,769.70
28,230.00AMERICAN INN PROP DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBADER DEVELOPMENT
28,230.00
314.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
11.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
325.00
900.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORECAST PUBLIC ARTWORKS
900.00
511.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
3,150.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
3,662.00
767.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
767.50
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
3,463.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGMCCOMB GROUP LTD
3,463.00
420.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNCAR EXCHANGE
420.00
182.87DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
182.87
316.04DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
316.04
1,588.67DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
2,741.20DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
4,329.87
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
10/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:40:25R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -9/18/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
103.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY
103.00
90.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
90.00
Report Totals 71,427.26
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 3
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A and
Series 2010B.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms, covenants, and
directions for the issuance of approximately $3,495,000 TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village),
Series 2010A.
Motion to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms, covenants, and
directions for the issuance of approximately $935,000 TIF Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village), Series
2010B.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA ratify its finding that the conditions required for the issuance of the proposed tax
exempt TIF Bonds related to the Hoigaard Village project have been met?
BACKGROUND:
This EDA action is the culmination of the process of replacing the taxable Hoigaard Village TIF
Notes with tax exempt TIF financing that has been underway for much of this year. Issuance of the
financing is a two-step process. Step 1 required the EDA to authorize the negotiation of final
business terms for issuance of the tax exempt Bonds and Note, as well as City Council authorization
for the EDA to issue the tax exempt Bonds and Note. These authorizations occurred on September
7th. Since that time the EDA’s financial adviser, Ehlers & Associates, has been working with the
Redeveloper’s underwriter, Dougherty & Company, to structure the financing. The business terms
for issuance of the Bonds and Note have now been successfully negotiated; and the EDA can
proceed to with Step 2, which is adopting the resolutions awarding the actual sale of the Bonds and
Note.
Ehlers and Dougherty have determined that the best way to market the refinancing is through a tax
exempt bond and a tax exempt note. They recommend that they should sell “Tax Increment
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010A” in a public offering; and the smaller subordinate TIF
Revenue Note Series 2010B as a private placement. The Bonds and Note are limited obligations of
the EDA – only tax increment revenues (“TIF Revenues”) are pledged to pay their principal and
interest. Combined the Bonds and Note replace the existing Initial Notes of $4,425,000
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
The proposed tax exempt Series 2010A Bonds will be issued in the approximate aggregate principal
amount of $3,495,000. The proposed tax exempt Series 2010B Note will be issued in the approximate
aggregate principal amount of $935,000. Both will bear interest at a rate just under 5%, and will have a
term of 12 years. Likewise, both the Bonds and the Note will be secured by the remaining tax increment
generated from both the Stage 1 and 4 properties.
The purchasers of the Bonds and the Note understand that the EDA makes no warranties regarding
the projected amount of available Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Bonds and the
Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds and the Note.
The EDA’s bond and legal counsel will be in attendance at the October 18th meeting to address any
questions commissioners may have.
Issuance of the Tax Exempt Bonds and Note are consistent with the requirements of the Contract
for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) entered into with Union Land II, LLC on March 6,
2006 the EDA (the “Redeveloper”). The Contract required the Redeveloper to construct four stages
of mixed-use development on the Redevelopment Property known as Hoigaard Village. Stage 1, the
“Harmony Vista,” consists of 74 condominium units over 25,000 SF of main-level commercial
space. This mixed use building has been completed and is fully leased as rental units due to changes
in the condominium market. Stage 2, the “Adagio,” a building consisting of 58 condominium units,
and Stage 3, the “Medly Row townhomes,” consisting of 22 townhome units, have not been
constructed. Stage 4, the “Camarata,” consisting of 220 rental apartment units, has been completed
and is fully leased.
Under the Contract, initial taxable tax increment notes may be issued to reimburse the Redeveloper
for specified redevelopment costs associated with each completed Stage. With the completion of
Stages 1 and 4, the EDA issued two initial taxable TIF Notes (the “Series 2006 Note” and the
“Series 2007 Note”) respectively. The Contract provides that upon the request of the Redeveloper
and subject to various conditions, the EDA will refinance any Initial Note as a tax-exempt
obligation.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA has already authorized the sale of the Bonds and Note. The EDA is now being asked to
award the sale of the Bonds and Note in accordance to the terms negotiated by EDA Consultants
and the Underwriter. The issuance of the obligations will not require any cash payments from the
EDA or City. All costs associated with the issuance (Kennedy & Graven, Ehlers and Dougherty) are
paid from gross proceeds of the Bonds.
The tax-exempt Bonds and Note will have a lower interest rate than the current taxable notes
(7.25%). This means the principal and interest on the notes will be paid down more quickly. The
proposed tax-exempt Bonds and Note are refinancing the current taxable notes, which were issued to
reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related to the completed portions of the Hoigaard
Village project. The EDA is not obligated to reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
to the Adagio and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village until they are built; and, the
amount of reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by the development.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Hoigaard Village project is consistent with the City’s Vision; especially the Strategic Directions
concerning gathering places, public art, trails, sidewalks and transportation.
Attachments: Resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms, covenants, and
directions for the issuance of approximately $3,495,000 TIF Revenue Bonds
(Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A.
Resolution awarding the sale of, and providing the form, terms, covenants, and
directions for the issuance of approximately $935,000 TIF Revenue Note
(Hoigaard Village), Series 2010B.
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE
FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF $3,495,000 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE), SERIES 2010A.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Issuer") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. The Issuer and the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) previously established the
Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No.
1 (the “Redevelopment Project”), and adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of
financing certain improvements within the TIF District, all pursuant to authority granted by
Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”), Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(the “EDA Act”), and 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended (the “Tax Increment Act”). In order to
provide for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project and the TIF District, the Issuer and
Union Land II, LLC (“Union Land”) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of
March 6, 2006, as amended (the “Contract”). The Contract provides for the development, among
other things, of a mixed-use commercial and residential development referred to as Stage 1, and a
220-unit rental apartment facility referred to as Stage 4. Pursuant to separate Assignment and
Assumptions of Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of January 12, 2007, Union Land
assigned its rights in and obligations under the Contract to KAN & Associates, LLC (“KAN”) as to
the Phase II Minimum Improvements (as defined in the Contract), and to Webster Group, LLC, as
to the Stage 2 Minimum Improvements. KAN subsequently assigned to Camarata, LLC
(“Camarata”) KAN’s rights to and obligations under the Contract as to Stage 4, pursuant to an
Assignment and Assumption of Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of June 1, 2007. As
their interests appear, Union Land and Camarata are referred to herein as “Redeveloper.”
1.02. Pursuant to Section 469.178 of the Tax Increment Act, the Issuer is authorized to
issue and sell its bonds or notes for the purpose of financing or refinancing public redevelopment
costs in a project (which includes the Redevelopment Project established and administered under the
HRA Act) and to pledge tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district
established within the Redevelopment Project to the payment of the principal of and interest on
such obligations.
1.03. Pursuant to the Tax Increment Act and the Contract, the Issuer issued and sold two
Initial Notes, consisting of its $1,663,000 Amended Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note
(Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2006A, dated July 1, 2006, and its $2,540,000 Taxable Tax
Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2007A, dated April 26, 2007 (together,
the “Initial Notes”), for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the
Redevelopment Project, secured by a parity pledge of Available Tax Increment (all capitalized terms
herein have the meaning assigned in the Contract unless the context clearly requires otherwise).
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 4
1.04. Pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. _______, adopted by the Board of the
Issuer on September 7, 2010, the Contract, and the terms and conditions of this Resolution, the
Issuer agreed to refinance the Initial Notes by issuing one or more tax-exempt tax increment revenue
notes or bonds, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions described in the Contract. The
Issuer hereby finds and determines that (a) the conditions described in the Contract for issuance of
tax-exempt tax increment revenue bonds have been met, and (b) it is in the best interests of the
Issuer that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A (the
“Bonds”) for the purpose of refinancing the outstanding principal amount of the Initial Notes,
funding a reserve fund for the Bonds, and paying costs of issuance associated with issuance of the
Bonds.
1.05. The offer of Dougherty & Company LLC (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the Bonds,
in accordance with the terms and at the rates of interest set forth hereinafter, for a purchase price of
$3,394,093.80 is hereby accepted. The Purchase price represents the par amount of the Bonds less
original issue discount in the amount of $13,531.20 and less an underwriting discount in the
amount of $87,375.00.
Section 2. Definitions. In this Resolution the following terms have the following
respective meanings unless the context hereof clearly requires otherwise. Capitalized terms used
herein which are not defined in this Section 2 have the meanings given them in the Contract.
“Authorized Denominations” means $25,000, and integral multiples of $5,000 in excess
thereof.
“Available Tax Increment” means 95 percent of the Tax Increment derived from the Stage 1
Property and the Stage 4 Property during the six-month period preceding each Payment Date.
“Board” means the Board of Commissioners of the Issuer.
“Bond Closing” means the date of issuance of and payment for the Bonds.
“Bond Counsel” means any attorney or firm of attorneys designated by the Issuer and
nationally-recognized in the field of municipal.
“Bond Fund” means the Fund by that name created and established by Section 6.03 of this
Resolution.
“Bondholder” or “Holder” means a person in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond
Register.
“Bond Purchase Agreement” means the Bond Purchase Agreement, dated October 15, 2010,
between the Issuer and the Purchaser providing for the purchase of the Bonds, and any amendments
or supplements thereto.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 5
“Bond Register” means the register maintained as provided in Section 3.08 of this
Resolution.
“Bonds” means the Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A.
“Bond Year” means initially the period from the date of Bond Closing to and including
February 1, 2011, and thereafter each twelve month period beginning on each February 2 and
ending on February 1 of the following year.
“Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or a day on
which banking institutions in the city where the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar is
located are authorized by law or executive order to close.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
“Contract” means the Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006,
between the Issuer and the Redeveloper, as amended by that First Amendment thereto dated as of
July 10, 2006, that Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, that Third Amendment
thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, that Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009,
and that Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010.
“County” means Hennepin County, Minnesota.
“DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors
and assigns.
“Depository” means a trust company or other fiduciary acting as a depository with respect to
the Bonds.
“Excess Available Tax Increment” means, as of each February 1 Payment Date, the Available
Tax Increment received by the Issuer in the previous twelve months that is in excess of the amount
needed to pay debt service due on the Bonds on that February 1 Payment Date and the immediately
previous August 1 Payment Date, after taking into account any amounts then on deposit in the
Bond Fund.
“Fund” means any of the funds created and described in Section 6 hereof.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
“Issuer” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body
corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 6
“Maturity” means, when used with respect to any Bond, the date on which the principal of
such Bond becomes due and payable as therein or herein provided, whether at the stated Maturity or
by scheduled redemption or declaration of acceleration or call for redemption or otherwise.
“Outstanding” means, when used with reference to Bonds, as of the date of determination,
all Bonds theretofore authenticated and delivered under this Resolution except:
(a) Bonds theretofore cancelled by the Registrar or delivered to the Registrar for
cancellation;
(b) Bonds and portions of Bonds for whose payment or redemption money or securities
(as provided in Section 7 hereof) shall have been theretofore irrevocably deposited with the
Registrar or any other paying agent for such Bonds in trust for the Holders of such Bonds,
provided, however, that if such Bonds are to be redeemed, notice of such redemption shall have
been duly given pursuant to this Resolution or irrevocable instructions to call such Bonds for
redemption at a stated Redemption Date shall have been given to the Registrar; and
(c) Bonds in exchange for or in lieu of which other Bonds shall have been authenticated
and delivered pursuant to this Resolution;
provided, however, that in determining whether the Holders of the requisite principal amount of
Outstanding Bonds have given any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent or
waiver hereunder, Bonds owned by the Issuer or purchased by the Registrar as provided herein shall
be disregarded and deemed not to be Outstanding, except that in determining whether the Registrar
shall be protected in relying upon any such request, demand, authorization, direction, notice,
consent, or waiver, only Bonds which the Registrar actually knows to be so owned shall be
disregarded.
“Participants” means those broker-dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time
to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository.
“Payment Date” means each February 1 and August 1, commencing on February 1, 2011.
“Permitted Investments” means any investment permitted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 118A.
“Purchaser” means Dougherty & Company, LLC.
“Record Date” means with respect to any Payment Date on the Bonds, (a) the fifteenth day
of the month (whether or not a Business Day) next preceding such Payment Date (each, a “Regular
Record Date”) or (b) if there is a default in payment of interest due on such Payment Date, a
“Special Record Date” for the payment of such defaulted interest established by the Registrar in
accordance with Section 3.04(b).
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 7
“Redemption Date” means, with respect to any Bond to be redeemed, the date on which it is
to be redeemed pursuant to this Resolution.
“Redemption Price” means, with respect to any Bond to be redeemed, the price (principal
amount plus accrued interest plus premium, if any) at which it is to be redeemed pursuant to this
Resolution.
“Redeveloper” means Union Land II, LLC and Camarata, LLC.
“Redevelopment Project” means Redevelopment Project No. 1 administered by the Issuer.
“Registrar” means the registrar who shall act as Registrar, transfer agent and paying agent, or
any successor Registrar or other fiduciary acting as Registrar, transfer agent or paying agent for the
Bonds. The initial Registrar is Bond Trust Services Corporation
“Representation Letter” means any letter of representations or agreement from the Issuer to
DTC with respect to the Bonds, and any similar letter or other agreement with any successor
depository for the Bonds.
“Reserve Requirement” means $165,875.00.
“Resolution” means this Resolution No. _____ approved by the Issuer on October 18, 2010.
“Stage 1 Property” means the property so described in EXHIBIT A of this Resolution.
“Stage 4 Property” means Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Hoigaard Village 2nd Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to
the Stage 1 Property and the Stage 4 Property and that is remitted to the Issuer as tax increment
pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. The term Tax Increment does not include any amounts
retained by or payable to the State auditor under Section 469.177, subd. 11 of the Tax Increment
Act, or any amounts described in Section 469.174, subd. 25, clauses (2) through (4) of the Tax
Increment Act.
“Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through
469.1799, as amended.
“TIF District” means the Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District established by the
Issuer and the City.
“Treasury Regulations” means the income tax regulations promulgated by the United States
Department of the Treasury under the Code and applicable to the Bonds.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 8
Section 3. Terms of Bonds Generally.
3.01. Special Obligations. The Bonds are special limited obligations of the Issuer, the
principal of and interest on which are payable solely from Available Tax Increment and shall be a
valid claim of the respective Holders only against the Available Tax Increment which is pledged and
shall be used for no other purpose than to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, except as
otherwise expressly authorized in this Resolution. The Bonds are not general or moral obligations of
the City, the State, the Issuer or any political subdivision or Issuer of the State. The Holder shall
have no right to compel the exercise of the taxing powers of the State, the Issuer or any political
subdivision or Issuer of the State. The Bonds are not an indebtedness of the State, the Issuer or any
political subdivision or Issuer of the State within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
limitation on indebtedness, other than the HRA Act and the Tax Increment Act.
3.02. Forms Generally. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in EXHIBIT
B, with such other appropriate insertions, omissions, substitutions or other variations as are required
or permitted by this Resolution. Definitive Bonds may be printed, lithographed or engraved or
produced by a combination of these methods, or may be produced in any other manner. All
signatures appearing on the Bonds (other than the signature of an officer of the Registrar appearing
in the certificate of authentication) may be facsimiles.
Section 3.03. Principal Amount, Designation, Interest Rates, Maturities.
(a) The Bonds shall be issued under and secured by this Resolution and denominated
“Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A.” The Bonds shall be issued in
the aggregate principal amount of $3,495,000.00 and dated as of the date of delivery.
(b) The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, numbered separately consecutively
upward, and the Bonds shall bear interest from their date of issue, payable each Payment Date. If a
default has occurred in the payment of any interest, the Registrar shall establish a special Record
Date for such payment as hereinafter provided. Interest on the Bonds shall be computed on the
basis of a 360-day year with twelve (12) months of thirty (30) days.
(c) The Bonds shall mature on the dates listed below, in the following respective
principal amounts, and shall bear interest at the rates per annum for each stated maturity of the
Bonds as set forth below opposite the respective stated maturities:
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 9
Stated Maturity Principal Amount Interest Rate
February 1, 2011 $175,000 1.50%
February 1, 2012 195,000 2.25
February 1, 2013 200,000 2.75
February 1, 2015 425,000 3.20
February 1, 2017 475,000 4.09
February 1, 2018 265,000 4.33
February 1, 2023 1,760,000 5.00
(d) To the extent lawful, interest shall accrue on all principal of and interest on the
Bonds not paid when due at the rate of interest accruing on the Bonds immediately prior to such
default.
(e) The Bonds shall be subject to redemption and prepayment prior to maturity as
provided in Section 4 hereof.
Section 3.04. Payment of Interest and Principal.
(a) The Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America in
immediately available funds: (i) in the case of principal of, redemption price and any premium on
such Bond, delivered or transmitted to the Holder when due; and (ii) in the case of interest on such
Bonds, delivered or transmitted on any date interest is due to the Holder of that Bond at the close of
business on the Record Date applicable to that Payment Date (the “Regular Record Date”). All
Bonds shall be payable as to principal and redemption price in lawful money of the United States at
the principal office of the Registrar upon presentment and surrender of the Bonds being paid, and
interest on each Bond shall be payable by check or draft drawn upon the Registrar and mailed on the
applicable Payment Date to the Holder thereof at the address of such Holder as reflected on the
Bond Register on the Regular Record Date; provided that upon written instruction from any Holder
of not less than $1,000,000 principal amount of the Bonds received at least five days prior to the
Regular Record Date (or all Outstanding Bonds, if less than $1,000,000 principal amount of Bonds
is Outstanding), payments to such Holder may be made to such Holder in immediately available
funds, on the date such payment is due, by wire transfer as instructed by the Holder and upon
payment by the Holder of the cost of such wire transfer.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if and to the extent that the Issuer shall fail to make
payment or provision for payment of interest on any Bond due on any date, that interest (“defaulted
interest”) shall cease to be payable to the person who was the Holder of that Bond as of the original
Regular Record Date. When money becomes available for payment of such defaulted interest: (i)
the Registrar shall establish a “Special Record Date” for the payment of such defaulted interest which
shall be not more than fifteen (15) nor fewer than ten days prior to the date of the proposed
payment; and (ii) the Registrar shall cause notice of the proposed payment and of the Special Record
Date to be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each Holder at its address as it appears on
the Bond Register not fewer than ten days prior to the Special Record Date and, thereafter, such
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 10
defaulted interest shall be payable to the persons who are the Holders of the Bonds at the close of
business on the Special Record Date as above established.
Section 3.05. Registered Form and Denominations. All Bonds shall be in fully registered
form without coupons in Authorized Denominations and shall be issued in the stated Maturities and
shall bear interest at such rates per annum and have such other terms as are set forth in this
Resolution.
Section 3.06. Execution of Bonds. Each Bond shall be executed in the name of, and on
behalf of, the Issuer by the manual, facsimile or photocopied signature of its President and Executive
Director, but the Issuer’s corporate seal may be omitted as permitted by law. Any Bond may be
signed, sealed or attested on behalf of the Issuer by any person who, at the date of such act, shall
hold the proper office, and the validity thereof shall not be impaired by the fact that one or more
officers authorized to execute such Bond shall have ceased to be in office or did not hold such office
on the formal issuance date thereof.
Section 3.07. Authentication of Bonds. Each Bond shall bear thereon a certificate of
authentication, substantially in the form set forth in EXHIBIT A. Only such Bonds as shall bear
thereon such certificate of authentication, duly executed, shall be entitled to any security, right or
benefit under this Resolution. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless such
certificate of authentication upon such Bond shall have been manually executed by the Registrar.
The Registrar shall authenticate the signature of the officers of the Issuer on each Bond by execution
of the Registrar’s Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of
registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for
purposes of delivering the Bonds at the Bond Closing to the Purchaser, the Registrar shall insert as a
date of registration the date of original issue. Such certificate of authentication upon any Bond
executed by the Registrar as herein provided on behalf of the Issuer shall be conclusive and the only
evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly authenticated and delivered under this
Resolution.
Section 3.08. Registration and Transfer of Bonds and Agent Therefor. The Issuer appoints
Bond Trust Services Corporation as the initial Registrar for the Bonds, but retains the right at time
to appoint a successor entity to serve as Registrar. The Issuer shall maintain and keep, at the
principal office of the Registrar, a Bond Register for the registration and transfer of Bonds and, upon
presentation thereof for such purpose at the principal office of the Registrar, the Issuer shall register
or cause to be registered therein and permit to be transferred thereon or to be exchanged, under such
reasonable regulations as the Issuer or Registrar may prescribe, any Bond entitled to registration,
transfer or exchange. The Registrar is hereby irrevocably appointed the agent of the Issuer for such
registration, transfer or exchange of Bonds.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 11
Section 3.09. Transfer and Exchange of Bonds.
(a) Each Bond may be exchanged at the option of the Holder, and each Bond may be
transferred, upon presentation and surrender of the Bond at the principal office of the Registrar,
together with an assignment or instrument of transfer duly executed by the Holder or its duly
authorized attorney-in-fact in form satisfactory to the Registrar. Upon such presentation and
surrender of a Bond, the Issuer shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate a Bond or Bonds of
the same series, maturity, and aggregate principal amount, bearing the same interest rate as the Bond
surrendered; whereupon the new Bond or Bonds shall be valid obligations of the Issuer secured
hereby and shall evidence all rights and privileges of the surrendered Bond, including all principal
and all accrued and unpaid interest due or payable thereon. All surrendered Bonds shall be
cancelled.
(b) For every such exchange or transfer of Bonds, the Registrar may make a charge
sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be
paid with respect to such exchange or transfer, as well as the cost of preparing each new Bond upon
each exchange or transfer and any other expenses of the Registrar incurred in connection with such
exchange or transfer shall be paid by the Issuer.
(c) Neither the Issuer nor the Registrar shall be required to register, transfer or exchange
Bonds for a period of fifteen (15) days next preceding any selection of Bonds to be redeemed or
thereafter any Bonds selected, called or being called for redemption as a whole or the portion being
redeemed of any Bonds selected, called or being called for redemption in part.
(d) No Bond may be transferred or exchanged in violation of any applicable federal or
state securities laws.
Section 3.10. Bonds Mutilated, Destroyed, Stolen or Lost. In the event that any Bond is
mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, the Issuer shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and
deliver, in lieu of any such mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond, a new Bond of like date,
denomination and series as the Bond mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, but bearing a number not
contemporaneously outstanding, provided that, in the case of any mutilated Bond, such mutilated
Bond shall first be surrendered to the Registrar, and in the case of any such destroyed, stolen or lost
Bond, there shall be first furnished to the Registrar evidence of such destruction, theft or loss
satisfactory to the Registrar, together with indemnity in favor of the Registrar and the Issuer. The
Registrar may charge the Holder of such Bond their reasonable fees and expenses in this connection.
All such Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by the Registrar. In case any such
mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has become or is about to become due and payable, the
Issuer shall, instead of issuing a new Bond, cause the Registrar to pay such Bond out of money held
by the Registrar and available for such purpose. The provisions of this Section are exclusive and shall
preclude (to the extent lawful) all other rights and remedies with respect to the replacement or
payment of mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bonds.
Section 3.11. Nonpresentment of Bonds. Except as otherwise provided by applicable law,
in the event any Bond shall not be presented for payment when due, either at the stated Maturity
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 12
thereof, upon a Redemption Date, or otherwise, if money sufficient to pay such Bond shall have
been made available to the Registrar pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution for the benefit of
the Holder thereof, all liability of the Issuer to the Holder thereof for the payment of such Bond
shall forthwith cease, terminate and be completely discharged, and thereupon it shall be the duty of
the Registrar to hold such funds, without liability for interest thereon, for the benefit of the Holder
of such Bond, who shall thereafter be restricted exclusively to such funds, for any claim of whatever
nature on his, her or its part under this Resolution or on, or with respect to, said Bond; provided
that any funds which shall be so held by the Registrar and which remain unclaimed by the Holder of
any Bond not presented for payment within two years after such date as upon which all of the Bonds
shall have been fully paid or retired or provision for such payment has been made as provided in
Section 9 of this Resolution shall be paid to the Issuer, free of any trust or lien, and thereafter any
such Holder shall look only to the Issuer for payment of such amount without interest thereon and
the Registrar shall have no further responsibility with respect to such money.
Section 3.12. Temporary Bonds.
(a) Pending the preparation of definitive Bonds, the Issuer may execute, and the
Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, temporary Bonds which are printed, lithographed,
typewritten, mimeographed or otherwise produced, in any denomination, substantially of the tenor
of the definitive Bonds in lieu of which they are issued, with such changes as may be necessary to
reflect more than one stated Maturity in a temporary bond, in fully registered form, and with such
appropriate insertions, omissions, substitutions and other variations as the officers executing such
Bonds may determine, as evidenced by their signing of such Bonds.
(b) If temporary Bonds are issued, the Issuer will cause definitive Bonds to be prepared
without unreasonable delay. After the preparation of definitive Bonds, the temporary Bonds shall be
exchangeable for definitive Bonds upon surrender of the temporary Bonds at the office of the
Registrar, without charge to the Holder. Upon surrender for cancellation of any one or more
temporary Bonds, the Issuer shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver in
exchange therefor a like principal amount of definitive Bonds of authorized denominations. Until so
exchanged, the temporary Bonds shall in all respects be entitled to the same benefits under this
Resolution as definitive Bonds, and interest thereon, when and as payable, shall be paid to the
Holder thereof as provided in this Resolution.
Section 3.13. Description of the Book-Entry System.
(a) Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, the Bonds
initially shall be issued in the form of a single authenticated fully registered Bond for each stated
Maturity of Bonds, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds of such maturity, and
the Bonds shall be governed by the provisions of this Section.
(b) Except as provided in this Section, all of the Outstanding Bonds shall be registered in
the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. With
respect to the Bonds registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Issuer and the
Registrar shall have no responsibility or obligation to any Participant or to any person on behalf of
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 13
which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds. Without limiting the immediately preceding
sentence, the Issuer and the Registrar shall have no responsibility or obligation with respect to (a) the
accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership
interest in the Bonds, (b) the delivery to any Participant or any other person, other than a
Bondholder, as shown in the Bond Register, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any
notice of redemption, or (c) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a
Bondholder, as shown in the Bond Register, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if
any, or interest on the Bonds. The Issuer and the Registrar may treat and consider the person in
whose name each Bond is registered in the Bond Register as the Holder and absolute owner of such
Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest with respect to such
Bond, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to such Bond,
for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bond, and for all other purposes
whatsoever. The Registrar shall pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only
to or upon the order of the respective Bondholders, as shown in the Bond Register, or their
respective attorneys duly authorized in writing, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to
fully satisfy and discharge the Issuer’s obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium,
if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a
Bondholder, as shown in the Bond Register, shall receive a certificated Bond evidencing the
obligation of the Issuer to make payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest pursuant to
this Resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the Issuer or the Registrar of written notice to the effect
that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., and subject to the
provisions herein with respect to Regular Record Dates, the words “Cede & Co.” in this Resolution
shall refer to such new nominee of DTC.
(c) The delivery by the Issuer of the Representation Letter shall not in any way limit the
provisions of preceding paragraph of this Section or in any other way impose upon the Issuer any
obligation whatsoever with respect to persons having interests in the Bonds other than the
Bondholders, as shown on the Bond Register kept by the Registrar. The Registrar shall take all
action necessary for all representations of the Registrar in the Representation Letter with respect to
the Registrar to be complied with at all times.
(d) DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds
at any time by giving reasonable written notice to the Issuer and the Registrar and discharging its
responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The Issuer, in its discretion and without
the consent of any other person, may terminate the services of DTC with respect to the Bonds.
Upon the discontinuance or termination of the services of DTC with respect to the Bonds, unless a
substitute securities depository is appointed to undertake the functions of DTC hereunder, the
Issuer is obligated to deliver Bond certificates to the beneficial owners of the Bonds, as described
herein, at its expense, and the Bonds shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the name of
Cede & Co. as nominee of DTC, but may be registered in whatever name or names Bondholders
transferring or exchanging Bonds shall designate, in accordance with the provisions of this
Resolution.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as
any Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all payments with respect to
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 14
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond
shall be made and given, respectively, in the manner provided in the Representation Letter.
(f) The Registrar is hereby authorized and requested to execute and deliver the
Representation Letter and, in connection with any successor nominee for DTC or any successor
depository, enter into comparable arrangements and shall have the same rights with respect to its
actions thereunder as it has with respect to its actions under this Resolution.
Section 4. Redemption. The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as follows:
Section 4.01. Optional Redemption. Bonds may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at the
option of the Issuer on February 1, 2018 and any date thereafter for which timely notice of
redemption can be given, at a Redemption Price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds so
redeemed plus interest accrued thereon to the Redemption Date. Bonds shall be subject to optional
redemption pursuant to this Section 4.01 only if funds to implement such redemption are deposited
in the Bond Fund on or before the date on which notice of redemption is required to be given by
Section 4.03, unless the notice of redemption states that redemption is conditioned on sufficient
funds being deposited in the Bond Fund on or before the Redemption Date.
Section 4.02. Scheduled Mandatory Redemption. The Bonds maturing on
February 1, 2012, February 1, 2013, February 1, 2015, February 1, 2017, February 1, 2018, and
February 1, 2023 are subject to scheduled mandatory redemption on the mandatory sinking fund
redemption dates and in the principal amounts set forth in the following tables, at a redemption
price equal to the principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the redemption date, without
premium, subject to pro rata reduction of such scheduled mandatory redemption payments to the
extent that such Bonds are redeemed prior to maturity otherwise than pursuant to such scheduled
mandatory redemption:
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2012
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2011 $95,000 February 1, 2012* $100,000
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2013
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2012 $100,000 February 1, 2013* $100,000
________________
*Maturity
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 15
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2015
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2013 $100,000 February 1, 2014 $105,000
August 1, 2014 110,000 February 1, 2015* 110,000
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2017
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2015 $115,000 February 1, 2016 $115,000
August 1, 2016 120,000 February 1, 2017* 125,000
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2018
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2017 $130,000 February 1, 2018* $135,000
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing February 1, 2023
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
August 1, 2018 $140,000 February 1, 2019 $140,000
August 1, 2019 150,000 February 1, 2020 155,000
August 1, 2020 160,000 February 1, 2021 165,000
August 1, 2021 $170,000 February 1, 2022 $175,000
August 1, 2022 185,000 February 1, 2023* 320,000
________________
*Maturity
Section 4.03. Election to Redeem; Notice to Registrar. In case of any redemption of
Outstanding Bonds pursuant to Section 4.01, the Issuer shall notify the Registrar at least thirty (30)
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 16
days prior to the Redemption Date fixed by the Issuer of such Redemption Date and of the principal
amount of Bonds to be redeemed.
Section 4.04. Selection of Bonds to be Redeemed.
(a) The Registrar shall promptly notify the Issuer, in writing, of the Bonds selected for
redemption and, in the case of any Bond selected for partial redemption, the principal amount
thereof to be redeemed.
(b) If less than all of the Bonds are to be redeemed other than in accordance with the
scheduled mandatory redemption provisions of Section 4.02, the Registrar shall select by lot the
Maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed and the principal amount to be redeemed from each
Maturity, and the scheduled mandatory redemption requirements for each Maturity described in
Section 4.02 shall be adjusted so that the resulting decrease in debt service on the Bonds (including
scheduled mandatory redemption payments) during each six-month period commencing on each
Payment Date is proportional, as nearly as practicable. If less than all of the Outstanding principal
amount of the Bonds of a specific Maturity are to be redeemed, the specific Bonds to be redeemed
shall be selected by the Registrar at random or in such manner as the Registrar shall deem fair and
appropriate.
Section 4.05. Notice of Redemption.
(a) Notice of redemption shall be given by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, mailed not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to the Redemption Date, to each Holder of Bonds to be redeemed at
the address of such Holder appearing in the Bond Register. For Bonds registered to Cede & Co., as
nominee of DTC, notice of redemption may instead by given by electronic notice, sent not less than
fifteen (15) days prior to the Redemption Date. Neither failure to give notice by mail to any
Holder, nor any defect in any notice so mailed, shall affect the validity of the proceedings for
redemption of the Bonds held by any Holder to which proper notice by mail has been given.
(b) All notices of redemption shall state: (i) the Redemption Date; (ii) the Redemption
Price; (iii) the principal amount of Bonds to be redeemed, the identification (and, in the case of
partial redemption, the respective principal amounts) of the Bonds to be redeemed, specifying the
CUSIP numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed and their registration number and stated Maturity;
(iv) that on the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each
such Bond, and that interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after such date, provided that if
redemption is conditioned on funds being deposited in the Bond Fund in an amount sufficient to
effect such redemption, this condition shall be stated in the notice and if sufficient funds are not so
deposited in the Bond Fund, the Bonds to be redeemed shall not be due and payable on the
Redemption Date and interest shall continue to accrue thereon; and (v) the place or places where
such Bonds are to be surrendered for payment of the Redemption Price.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 17
Section 4.06. Bonds Payable on Redemption Date.
(a) Notice of redemption having been given as aforesaid, the Bonds to be redeemed
shall, on the Redemption Date, become due and payable at the Redemption Price therein specified
and from and after such date such Bonds shall cease to bear interest, except as otherwise provided
herein in the case of a conditional redemption when insufficient funds are deposited in the Bond
Fund to effect such redemption. Subject to the foregoing provision, upon surrender of any such
Bond for redemption in accordance with such notice, such Bond shall be paid at the Redemption
Price.
(b) If any Bond called for redemption shall not be so paid upon surrender thereof for
redemption, the principal (and premium, if any) shall, until paid, bear interest from the Redemption
Date (and, if lawful, interest on overdue installments of principal, premium, if any, and interest) at
the rate borne by said Bond.
Section 5. Covenants of the Issuer.
Section 5.01. Payment of Principal and Interest. The Issuer covenants that it will promptly
pay or cause to be paid from funds pledged to the Bond Fund the principal of and interest on every
Bond at the place, on the dates and in the manner provided herein, in said Bond according to the
terms hereof and thereof. The principal and interest are payable solely from the Available Tax
Increment hereby specifically assigned and pledged to the payment thereof for the benefit of the
Bondholders in the manner and to the extent herein specified, and nothing in the Bonds or in this
Resolution shall be considered as assigning or pledging any other funds or assets of the Issuer for
such purposes, except as expressly provided in this Resolution.
Section 5.02. Revenue Covenants. For the protection of the Holders of the Bonds, the
Issuer herein covenants and agrees to and with the Holders thereof from time to time as provided in
this Section:
(a) The Issuer shall not act or omit to act in any way that would deprive the Issuer of the
right to receive Available Tax Increment revenues or use Available Tax Increment revenues as
provided in this Resolution.
(b) The Issuer shall not pledge or encumber Available Tax Increment in any manner that
would create a pledge, lien or encumbrance against the Available Tax Increment superior to, or on a
parity with, the pledge of Available Tax Increment provided for in this Resolution. This covenant
shall not be construed to preclude an expressly subordinate pledge of Available Tax Increment.
(c) The Issuer shall cause Hennepin County to remit all tax increment revenues from the
TIF District to the Issuer promptly, and the Issuer shall promptly determine the amount thereof that
constitutes Tax Increment and Available Tax Increment and shall promptly deposit all Available Tax
Increment in the Bond Fund.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 18
Section 5.03. Obligations of Issuer as to Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds.
(a) The Issuer makes the following representations with respect to the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes:
(i) In addition to the Bonds, no other obligations have been or are expected to
be issued under Section 103 of the Code for sale at substantially the same time as the Bonds:
(A) that are sold pursuant to the same plan of financing; and (B) that are payable in whole or
part by the Issuer or otherwise have with the Bonds any common or pooled security for the
payment of debt service thereon; or (C) which are otherwise treated as the same “issue of
obligations” as the Bonds under Section 103(a) of the Code.
(ii) The Issuer will not use the proceeds of the Bonds in such a manner as to
cause the Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; to
this end, the Issuer shall:
(A) maintain, or cause to be maintained, records identifying all gross
proceeds (as defined in Section 148(f)(6)(B) of the Code) attributable to the Bonds
and the yield derived from all investments thereof, including specifically earnings in
excess of the yield on the Bonds and any earnings derived from the investment of
such arbitrage profit;
(B) make, or cause to be made, as of the end of each fifth Bond Year (or
so often as the Issuer shall determine or as may be required by the Treasury
Regulations), a determination of the amount, if any, of earnings required by Section
148(f) of the Code to be paid to the United States by the Issuer as the rebate of
arbitrage profits; and
(C) as additional consideration for the purchase of the Bonds by the
Purchaser and the loan of the money represented thereby, and in order to induce
such purchase by measures designed to ensure the excludability of the interest
thereon from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes,
pay, or cause to be paid, to the United States at least once every five Bond Years the
amount, if any, which is required to be paid to the United States as the Rebate
Amount, including the last installment which shall be made no later than sixty (60)
days after the day on which the Bonds are paid in full.
(iii) No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to
acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly
to acquire higher yielding investments, except (A) for a reasonable temporary period until
such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Bonds were issued, and (B) in
addition to the above in an amount not greater than $100,000. To this end, any proceeds of
the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Funds for the Bonds (or any other
Issuer account which will be used to pay debt service to become due on the Bonds) in excess
of amounts which under then-applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 19
without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield
restrictions imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments, after taking into
account any applicable “temporary periods”, minor portion or reserve made available under
the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Funds for the Bonds shall not be invested in
obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any Issuer
or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds
to be “federally guaranteed” within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code. The
proceeds of the Bonds shall not be invested in other tax-exempt obligations the interest on
which is subject to alternative minimum tax under the Code, unless the Issuer has received
an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such investment will not jeopardize the tax-
exempt status of the Bonds.
(iv) The Issuer hereby covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds, or to cause
or permit them or any of them to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment
arrangements for the cost of the Project, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be
“private activity bonds” within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the
Code.
(vii) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Resolution to the contrary, the
Issuer shall not otherwise use any of the proceeds of the Bonds or take or fail to take any
action the effect of which would cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income
of the Holders thereof for federal income tax purposes.
(b) The obligations of the Issuer under this Section 5.03 shall survive the defeasance or
payment in full of the Bonds.
5.04. Bank Qualification. The Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt
obligations” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), and represents that the Issuer does not reasonably anticipate that the Issuer, or any
other subordinate entity of the Issuer will issue in calendar year 2010 more than $30,000,000 of
bonds or other tax-exempt obligations (excluding “private activity bonds” other than “qualified
501(c)(3) bonds,” as such terms are defined in the Code, and excluding certain refunding
obligations, that are not included in the $30,000,000 limitation set forth in Section 265(b)(3)(C)(i)
of the Code).
Section 6. Funds, Application of Available Tax Increment and Other Matters.
Section 6.01. Establishment of Funds. The Issuer hereby establishes and shall maintain a
Cost of Issuance Fund, a Refunding Fund, a Bond Fund, a Reserve Fund, and a Rebate Fund.
Section 6.02. Application of Proceeds. On the Bond Closing, the Issuer will receive
proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of $3,394,093.80 (the par amount of the Bonds, less original
issue discount of $13,531.20, less underwriter’s discount in the amount of $87,375). The Issuer
shall deposit or disburse such proceeds of the Bonds as follows:
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 20
(a) $72,500.00 to the Cost of Issuance Fund
(b) $3,155,657.81 to the Refunding Fund
(c) $165,875.00 to the Reserve Fund
(d) $60.99 to the Bond Fund.
Section 6.03. Bond Fund.
(a) Upon receipt during each Bond Year, the Issuer shall deposit Available Tax
Increment into the Bond Fund in the amount that, together with any funds on deposit in the Bond
Fund, is necessary to pay principal and interest on the Bonds in that Bond Year.
(b) On each February 1, after the payment of interest and principal due on the Bonds, if
there is Excess Available Tax Increment, such Excess Available Tax Increment shall be applied first to
the credit of the Reserve Fund in any amount necessary to restore the balance therein to the Reserve
Requirement, and any remaining Excess Available Tax Increment is released from the pledge to the
Bonds and may be used by the Issuer for any purpose under law, including without limitation the
Authority’s subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2010B (the “Series 2010B Note”).
(c) All investment earnings on the funds in the Bond Fund shall remain in the Bond
Fund.
Section 6.04. Refunding Fund. The Issuer shall deposit in the Refunding Fund the
amount referred to in Section 6.02(b). The Issuer shall also deposit in the Refunding Fund
$935,000 from proceeds of the Series 2010B Note. The Issuer shall disburse funds from the
Refunding Fund to pay the costs to prepay $1,578,333.31 in outstanding principal amount of and
accrued and unpaid interest on the Series 2006 Note and to prepay $2,512,324.50 in outstanding
principal amount of and accrued and unpaid interest on the Series 2007 Note.
Section 6.05. Cost of Issuance Fund. The Issuer shall deposit in the Cost of Issuance Fund
the amounts referred to in Section 6.02(a). The Issuer shall use money on deposit to the credit of
the Cost of Issuance Fund, on the Bond Closing or as soon thereafter as practicable, to pay the costs
of issuance of the Bonds upon presentation of invoices therefor. Amounts remaining on deposit in
the Cost of Issuance Fund thirty (30) days after the date of issuance of the Bonds shall be transferred
to the Bond Fund. Upon such final disbursement, the Issuer shall close the Cost of Issuance Fund.
Section 6.06. Reserve Fund.
(a) The Issuer shall deposit in the Reserve Fund the amounts referred to in Section
6.02(d), representing the Reserve Requirement. The Issuer shall also deposit in the Reserve Fund
the amounts of Excess Available Tax Increment, if any, credited to the Reserve Fund in accordance
with Section 6.03(b) hereof.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 21
(b) The Issuer shall transfer from the Reserve Fund to the Bond Fund on the day
preceding any Payment Date, such amount which, together with amounts already on deposit in the
Bond Fund, is required for the payment from the Bond Fund of interest and principal due on the
next Payment Date.
(c) The Issuer shall transfer any amount in excess of the Reserve Requirement held in
the Reserve Fund on the day after a Payment Date (i) to the Rebate Fund, to the extent such
amount consists of any Rebate Amount and (ii) to the Bond Fund any other amounts.
Section 6.07. Rebate Fund.
(a) The Issuer shall establish and maintain a fund separate from any other fund
established and maintained hereunder, designated as the Rebate Fund. The Issuer shall deposit in
the Rebate Fund any Rebate Amount earned on the Funds described in, and pursuant to the
provisions of, this Section 6. Subject to the transfer provisions provided, all money at any time
deposited in the Rebate Fund shall be held by the Issuer in trust, to the extent required to satisfy the
obligation of the Issuer to rebate arbitrage profits to the United States of America. Neither the
Issuer nor the Holder of any Bonds shall have rights in or claim to such money. All amounts
deposited into or on deposit in the Rebate Fund shall be governed by this Section.
(b) The Issuer shall transfer from the Funds to the Rebate Fund any Rebate Amount.
(c) The Issuer shall have no obligation to make any rebate payments pursuant to this
Section, other than from money held in the Funds created under this Resolution or from other
money provided to it by the Issuer.
(d) The Issuer shall invest all amounts held in the Rebate Fund, pursuant to the
provisions of this Section 6.07. The Issuer shall retain in the Rebate Fund all earnings on
investments of amounts held in the Rebate Fund (calculated by taking into account net gains or
losses on sales or exchanges and taking into account amortized discount or premium as a gain or loss,
respectively). Money shall not be transferred from the Rebate Fund except as provided in paragraph
(e) below.
(e) The Issuer shall remit part or all of the balances in the Rebate Fund to the United
States, as required by Section 148(a) of the Code at the written direction of the firm engaged by the
Issuer to provide rebate services. If on the first day of any Bond Year the amount credited to the
Rebate Fund exceeds the Rebate Requirement, if the Issuer so directs, the Issuer will deposit money
into or transfer money out of the Rebate Fund to the extent of such excess from or into such
accounts or funds held by the Issuer hereunder, as directed by the Issuer’s written directions. Any
funds remaining in the Rebate Fund after redemption and payment of all of the Bonds, and receipt
of evidence from the firm engaged by the Issuer to perform rebate services that any Rebate
Requirement has been paid, and satisfied, shall be withdrawn and remitted to the Issuer.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 22
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Indenture, the obligation to remit the
Rebate Amounts to the United States and to comply with all other requirements of this Section shall
survive the defeasance or payment in full of the Bonds.
(g) Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, if the Issuer receives an opinion of
Bond Counsel to the effect that any action required under this Section is no longer required, or to
the effect that some further action is required, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the
interest with respect to the Bonds pursuant to Section 103 of the Code, the Issuer may rely
conclusively on such opinion in complying with the provisions hereof.
Section 6.08. Investments. Money held for the credit of any Fund established by this
Section 6 shall be invested as received and reinvested by the Issuer in Permitted Investments only;
provided that any money credited to the Reserve Fund shall be invested in instruments with a
maturity no longer than five years. The Issuer covenants and certifies for the benefit of the
Purchaser and Holders of the Bonds from time to time Outstanding that money on deposit in any
Fund, whether or not such money was derived from the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds or from
any other sources, are not intended to be used in a manner which will cause the interest on the
Bonds to become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Section 7. Disclosure Documents and Closing Certificates.
7.01. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement with respect to the
Bonds are hereby ratified and approved. The distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and
the Official Statement prepared in conjunction with the offer and sale of the Bonds is hereby ratified
and approved.
7.02. The Executive Director is authorized to furnish to the purchasers of the Bonds, on
the date of issuance and sale of the Bonds, a certificate that, to the best of the knowledge of such
officer, the Official Statement (or other form of disclosure document) does not, as of the date of
closing, and did not, as the time of sale of the Bonds, contain any untrue statement of a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading. Unless litigation shall have been commenced and be pending
questioning the Bonds, the proceedings for approval of the Bonds, tax increment revenues generated
or collected for payment of the Bonds, or the organization of the Authority, or incumbency of its
officers, the Executive Director shall also execute and deliver a suitable certificate as to absence of
material litigation, and the Executive Director shall also execute and deliver a certificate as to
payment for and delivery of the Bonds, and the signed approving legal opinion of Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered, as to the validity and enforceability of the Bonds and the tax-exempt status of
interest on the Bonds.
7.03. The Executive Director and other agents, officers, and employees of the Authority
are hereby authorized and directed, individually and collectively, to furnish to the attorneys
approving the Bonds, on behalf of the purchasers of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings
and certifications as to facts as shown by the books and records of the Authority, and the right and
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 23
authority of the Authority to issue the Bonds, and all such certified copies and certifications shall be
deemed representations of fact on the part of the Authority. Such officers, employees, and agents of
the Authority are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Authority, all other
certificates, instruments, and other written documents that may be requested by bond counsel, the
Purchaser, or other persons or entities in conjunction with the issuance of the Bonds and the
expenditure of the proceeds of the Bonds. Without imposing any limitations on the scope of the
preceding sentence, such officers and employees are specifically authorized to execute and deliver a
certificate relating to federal tax matters including matters relating to arbitrage and arbitrage rebate, a
receipt for the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds, a general certificate of the Authority, and
an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-G.
Section 8. Continuing Disclosure.
Section 8.01. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure
Certificate” means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the President and
Executive Director and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed
and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
Section 8.02. Issuer Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate.
The Issuer hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of
the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution,
failure of the Issuer to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an
event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may
be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to
cause the Issuer to comply with its obligations under this section.
Section 9. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this
Section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Resolution to the Holders shall, to
the extent permitted by law, cease. The Issuer may discharge its obligations with respect to any
Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Registrar on or before that date
a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may
nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof
in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The Issuer may also discharge its obligations
with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable
according to their terms, by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for
the payment thereof in full, provided that notice of redemption thereof has been duly given. The
Issuer may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the
provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably
in escrow, with a suitable banking institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose,
cash or securities bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates
as shall be required, without regard to sale and/or reinvestment, to pay all amounts to become due
thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been duly provided for, to
such earlier redemption date.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 24
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 18, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 25
EXHIBIT A
Stage 1 Property
Units P001 through P101 inclusive, S201 through S219 inclusive, S301 through S319 inclusive,
S401 through S419 inclusive, S503 through S517 inclusive, Units 201 through 219 inclusive, Units
301 through 319 inclusive, Units 401 through 419 inclusive and Units 503 through 519 inclusive,
and all of the common element in CIC Number 1817, a Condominium, Harmony Vista At
Hoigaard Village CIC Plat, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And
Unit 1 and all of the common element in CIC Number 1816, a Condominium, Harmony Vista
Commerical at Hoigaard Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 26
EXHIBIT B
Form of Bond
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
No. R-1 $
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE),
SERIES 2010
Maturity Date Date of Issuance Interest Rate CUSIP
______ 1, 20__ %
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: DOLLARS
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (the “Issuer”), certifies that it is indebted and for value received promises to pay to the
registered owner above, or registered assigns, in the manner set forth hereinafter but solely from the
revenues and funds described herein and according to the terms described herein, the principal
amount specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, and to pay interest thereon
semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each a “Payment Date”), commencing
February 1, 2011, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of
twelve 30-day months) until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear
interest from the most recent Payment Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has
been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this
Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the office of Bond Trust Services
Corporation (the “Registrar”) acting as paying agent and registrar for the Bonds, or any successor
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 27
paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Payment Date
by check or draft drawn upon the Registrar mailed (or under certain conditions specified in the
Resolution sent by wire transfer) to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the “Holder”
or “Bondholder”) on the registration books of the Issuer maintained by the Registrar and at the
address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month
preceding such Payment Date (the “Regular Record Date”). Any interest not so timely paid shall
cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall
be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof at the close of business on a date (the “Special
Record Date”) fixed by the Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the
defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given to Bondholders not less than ten
days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in
lawful money of the United States of America.
If the date for payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be
a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or a day on which banking institutions in the City of New York,
New York, or the city where the principal office of the Registrar is located are authorized by law or
executive order to close, then the date for such payment shall be the next succeeding day which is
not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or a day on which such banking institutions are authorized to
close, and payment on such date shall have the same force and effect as if made on the nominal date
of payment.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $_______________ (the
“Bonds”), all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to number, maturity, interest rate,
denomination, and redemption privilege, issued under and equally and ratably secured and entitled
to the protection given by the Resolution. The Bonds are issued to refinance certain public
redevelopment costs of a project under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047, 469.090 to 469.1081, and 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended (collectively, the “Act”).
Reference is made to the Resolution (hereinafter defined) for a description of the provisions, among
others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security, the rights, duties and obligations of the
Issuer and the rights of the Holders of the Bonds, and the terms upon which the Bonds are issued
and secured.
The Bonds are subject to redemption as follows:
(a) Optional Redemption. Bonds may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at the option
of the Issuer on August 1, 20__ and any date thereafter for which timely notice of redemption can
be given, at a Redemption Price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds so redeemed plus
interest accrued thereon to the Redemption Date.
(b) Mandatory Redemption. The Bonds maturing on August 1, 2011, August 1, 2012,
August 1, 2013, August 1, 2014, August 1, 2015, August 1, 2016, August 1, 2017, August 1, 2018,
August 1, 2019, August 1, 2020, August 1, 2021, and August 1, 2022 are subject to scheduled
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 28
mandatory redemption on the mandatory sinking fund redemption dates and in the principal
amounts set forth in the following tables, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount
thereof plus accrued interest to the redemption date, without premium, subject to pro rata reduction
of such scheduled mandatory redemption payments to the extent that such Bonds are redeemed
prior to maturity otherwise than pursuant to such scheduled mandatory redemption:
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2011
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2011 $ August 1, 2011* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2012
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2012 $ August 1, 2012* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2013
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2013 $ August 1, 2013* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2014
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2014 $ August 1, 2014* $
________________
*Maturity
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 29
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2015
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2015 $ August 1, 2015* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2016
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2016 $ August 1, 2016* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2017
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2017 $ August 1, 2017* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2018
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2018 $ August 1, 2018* $
________________
*Maturity
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 30
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2019
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2019 $ August 1, 2019* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2020
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2020 $ August 1, 2020* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2021
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2021 $ August 1, 2021* $
________________
*Maturity
Bonds Maturing August 1, 2022
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
Redemption Date Principal
Amount
February 1, 2022 $ August 1, 2022* $
________________
*Maturity
In the case of redemption of less than all Bonds Outstanding pursuant to paragraph (a)
above, the Registrar shall select by lot the maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed, and the principal
amount to be redeemed from each maturity. If less than all of the Outstanding principal amount of
the Bonds of a specific maturity are to be redeemed, the specific Bonds to be redeemed shall be
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 31
selected by the Registrar at random or in such manner as the Registrar shall deem fair and
appropriate.
Notice of redemption shall be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, mailed not less than
fifteen (15) days prior to the Redemption Date, to each Holder of Bonds to be redeemed at the
address of the Holder appearing in the Bond Register. For Bonds registered to Cede & Co., as
nominee of DTC, notice of redemption may instead by given by electronic notice, sent not less than
fifteen (15) days prior to the Redemption Date. No defect in or failure to give notice by mail to any
Holder shall affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption of any Bond held by any Holder to
which proper notice by mail has been given.
The Bonds are issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of
the State of Minnesota, particularly the Act, and pursuant to Resolution No. ___________ adopted
by the Board of Commissioners of the Issuer on October 18, 2010 (the “Resolution”). The Bonds
are special obligations payable solely from Available Tax Increment and certain other funds pledged
to the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon.
The Bonds are issued by the Issuer to aid in financing a project under the Act. The Bonds
do not constitute a general or moral obligation of the State of Minnesota or its political subdivisions,
including the Issuer. The Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues
and assets expressly pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the
Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations therein set forth, this Bond
is transferable by the Holder in person or by his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing at the
principal office of the Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Registrar, duly
endorsed by, or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Issuer
and Registrar duly executed by, the Holder hereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in
writing. Thereupon the Issuer shall execute and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in
exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee (but
not registered in blank or to “bearer” or similar designation) of the same series, of an authorized
denomination or denominations, for the same aggregate principal amount and of the same stated
maturity and interest rate.
The Bonds are issued as fully registered bonds in the denomination of $25,000 and integral
multiples of $1,000 in excess thereof. The Bonds are exchangeable for one or more Bonds of the
same series, aggregate principal amount, interest rate and maturity date, upon surrender thereof by
the Holder at the principal office of the Registrar, in the manner and upon payment of the charges
provided in the Resolution.
The Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax, fee or other
governmental charge required to be made in connection with the transfer or exchange of this Bond.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 32
The Issuer, Registrar and any agent of the Issuer or Registrar may treat the person in whose
name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein
provided (except as otherwise provided with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes,
whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and the Issuer, Registrar and agents of the Issuer or
Registrar shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
The Bonds have been designated by the Issuer as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Capitalized terms which are used but not defined herein shall have the same meanings given
them in, or pursuant to, the Resolution.
This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any
security or benefit under the Resolution unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have
been executed by the Registrar.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed,
precedent to and in the execution and delivery of the Resolution and in the issuance of this Bond,
have been done, have happened and have been performed, in regular and due form, time and
manner as required by law, and that this Bond, together with all other obligations of the Issuer
outstanding on the Date of Original Issue hereof and on the date of its issuance and delivery to the
purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has
caused this Bond to be executed in its name and on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its
authorized officers, as of the Date of Original Issue first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
as Issuer
By
Its President
By
__________________________________________
Its Executive Director
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 33
REGISTRAR’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Resolution.
Date of Registration:
__________, 2010
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION,
as Registrar
By
Responsible Agent
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 34
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
(Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Transferee)
the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints
______________________________ attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for
registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Please Insert Social Security Number or
Other Identifying Number of Assignee.
Notice: The signature to this assignment must
correspond with the name as it appears on the
face of this Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program
(“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other
such “signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in
substitution for, STEMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
The Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the
assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held
by joint account.)
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 35
ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations
TEN COM — as tenants in common TEN ENT — as tenants by entireties
JT TEN — as joint tenants with right
of survivorship and not as tenants in
common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT —
_______________ Custodian _____________
(Cust) (Minor)
under Uniform Gifts or Transfers to Minors Act
_______________ (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 36
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND
PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX EXEMPT
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE REFUNDING NOTE
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE), SERIES 2010B, IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $935,000.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Background. Pursuant to that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between
the Authority and Union Land II LLC and assigns (the “Redeveloper”), dated as of March 6, 2006,
as amended (the “Contract”), the Authority issued and sold two Initial Notes, consisting of its
$1,663,000 Amended Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series
2006A, dated May 1, 2010, and its $2,540,000 Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard
Village Project), Series 2007A, dated April 26, 2007 (together, the “Refunded Notes”), for the
purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the City
of St. Louis Park (the “City”), secured by a parity pledge of Available Tax Increment (all capitalized
terms herein have the meaning assigned in the Contract unless the context clearly requires
otherwise).
1.02. Issuance of Series 2010A Bonds. The Contract provides for the issuance of
Refunding Notes to refinance the outstanding principal amount of any Initial Note, secured by a
pledge of Available Tax Increment, upon satisfaction of certain conditions described in the Contract.
On the date hereof, the Authority has determined that the conditions described in the Contract for
issuance of Refunding Notes have been met, and has awarded the sale of its $3,495,000 Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village), Series 2010A (the “Series 2010A Bonds”) to
Dougherty & Company, to refund a portion of the outstanding principal of the Refunded Notes.
1.03. Findings: Series 2010B Note. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is
in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Refunding
Note (Hoigaard Village Project), Series 2010B in the aggregate principal amount of $935,000 (the
“Series 2010B Note”) for the purpose of refinancing the outstanding principal amount of the
Refunded Notes which is in excess of the amount refunded from net proceeds of the Series 2010A
Bonds. The pledge of Available Tax Increment (as such term is defined in the form of Note
attached hereto as Schedule A) to the Series 2010B Note shall be subordinate to the pledge of
Available Tax Increment to the Series 2010A Bonds.
1.04. Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Series 2010B Note. The Series 2010B Note is
issued pursuant to the Contract. The Authority hereby authorizes issuance of the Series 2010B Note
in accordance with terms set forth in this Resolution to Northern Holding II, LLC (the
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 37
“Purchaser”), at a price of par. Accrued and unpaid interest on the Series 2010B Note shall be paid
at the rate of 3.99% per annum to maturity on each February 1, commencing February 1, 2011 (the
"Payment Dates"). Available Tax Increment on deposit in the Note Fund on each Payment Date in
excess of the amount needed for the payment of accrued interest on such date shall be applied to the
prepayment and redemption of the outstanding principal balance of the Series 2010B Note.
Section 2. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
2.01. Denomination, Payment. The Series 2010B Note shall be issued as a
typewritten note numbered R-l in the amount of $935,000, and shall be issued in substantially
the form attached hereto as Schedule A. The Series 2010B Note shall be issuable only in fully
registered form. Principal of and interest on the Series 2010B Note shall be payable by check or
draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. The Series 2010B Note shall be dated as of its
date of original issue. Principal of and interest on the Series 2010B Note shall be payable by
mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Controller to perform the
functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall
be as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the
Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Series 2010B Note and the
registration of transfers and exchanges of the Series 2010B Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Series 2010B Note duly
endorsed by the Owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the Owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the Owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the
designated transferee or transferees, a new Series 2010B Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Series 2010B Note
shall be transferred only to an “accredited investor” within the meaning of Regulation D of the
Securities and Exchange Commission and only upon execution and delivery by the purchaser to the
Registrar of an investment letter substantially in the form of Schedule A hereto. The Registrar may
close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each
Payment Date and until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Series 2010B Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be
promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Series 2010B Note is presented
to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the
endorsement on such Series 2010B Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 38
The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its
judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person
in whose name the Series 2010B Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute
owner of the Series 2010B Note, whether the Series 2010B Note shall be overdue or not, for the
purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Series
2010B Note and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner
or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the
Authority upon such Series 2010B Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Series 2010B
Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the
Registrar for any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such
transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case the Series 2010B Note shall
become mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Series 2010B
Note of like amount, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon
cancellation of such mutilated Series 2010B Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Series
2010B Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of
the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Series 2010B Note is lost, stolen, or
destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Series 2010B Note
was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of
an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both
the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as herefo. The Series 2010B Note so surrendered to
the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation, shall be given to the
Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Series 2010B Note has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new
Series 2010B Note prior to payment.
(h) Redemption. In the event the Series 2010B Note is called for optional
redemption, notice thereof shall be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption
notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of the Series 2010B Note at the
address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar, at least 30 days before the date of
redemption of the Series 2010B Note. No notice of redemption shall be required for the application
of Available Tax Increment to the payment of principal on a Payment Date. The principal balance
of the Series 2010B Note called for redemption shall cease to bear interest after the specified
redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of
payment at that time.
2.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Series 2010B Note shall be prepared under the
direction of the Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the
signatures of its President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear
on the Series 2010B Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Series 2010B Note,
such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 39
had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, the Series 2010B Note shall
not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution
unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Series 2010B Note has been duly executed by
the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication
on different Series 2010B Note certificates need not be signed by the same representative. The
executed certificate of authentication on the Series 2010B Note shall be conclusive evidence that it
has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Series 2010B Note has been
so executed and authenticated, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner upon
payment of the purchase price therefor, and the Owner shall not be obligated to see to the
application of the purchase price. Upon delivery, any preconditions to the delivery of the Series
2010B Note shall be deemed satisfied or waived by the Authority.
Section 3. Security Provisions.
3.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and
interest on the Series 2010B Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Series 2010B Note
remaining after payment or provision for payment on each Payment Date of the principal and
interest on the Series 2010A Bonds, all as described in paragraph 3 of the Series 2010B Note.
Available Tax Increment shall be deposited in the Note Fund in accordance with Section 4.02 hereof
and applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 2010B Note in accordance with
the terms of the form of Series 2010B Note set forth in Schedule A of this Resolution.
3.02. Note Fund. Until the date the Series 2010B Note is no longer outstanding and no
principal thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution)
remains unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Note Fund” to be used for no
purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 2010B Note. The
Authority irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Note Fund in each year Available Tax Increment
remaining after payment in full of all principal and interest then due on the Series 2010A Bonds. Any
Available Tax Increment remaining in the Note Fund shall be transferred to the Authority's account for
the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
3.03. Refunding; Findings; Redemption of Refunded Notes. It is hereby found and
determined that based upon information presently available from the Authority’s financial advisers,
the issuance of the Series 2010B Note is consistent with covenants made with the holders of the
Refunded Notes and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service costs to the
Authority. It is additionally found and determined that the Proceeds, together with the proceeds of
the Series 2010A Bonds, will be sufficient to prepay all of the principal of and interest on the
Refunded Notes. The Refunded Notes will be redeemed and prepaid on October 19, 2010 in
accordance with their terms.
4.04. Additional Obligations. The Authority may not issue any additional obligations
secured in whole or in part by Available Tax Increment as defined in the Series 2010B Note unless
such obligations are subordinate to the Series 2010B Note.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 40
4.05. Investment of Funds. All amounts held in the Note Fund will be invested in
accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 118A, governing the investment of
funds of governmental entities.
Section 4. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby
authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Registered Owner of the Series 2010B Note
certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates,
and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the
Series 2010B Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control
or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including
any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited
therein.
Section 5. Tax Covenant.
5.01. The Authority covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the
Series 2010B Note that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or
agents any action which would cause the interest on the Series 2010B Note to become subject to
taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or
cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be
necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and
applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to
the Bonds.
5.02. The Authority will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to
establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Series 2010B Note
under Section 103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary
periods for investments and limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the
Series 2010B Note.
5.03. The Authority further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Series 2010B
Note or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Series
2010B Note to be a “private activity bond” within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through
150 of the Code.
5.04. In order to qualify the Series 2010B Note as a “qualified tax-exempt obligation”
within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the Authority makes the following factual
statements and representations:
(a) the Series 2010B Note is not a “private activity bond” as defined in Section
141 of the Code;
(b) the Authority hereby designates the Series 2010B Note as a “qualified tax-
exempt obligation” for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code;
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 41
I the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than
private activity bonds, that are not qualified 501I(3) bonds) which will be issued by the City
(and all subordinate entities of the City, including the Authority) during calendar year 2010
will not exceed $30,000,000; and
(d) not more than $30,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar
year 2010 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
Section 6. Continuing Disclosure. The continuing disclosure requirements of Rule
l5c2-l2 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the “Rule”) do not apply to the Series 2010B Note, because the offering is exempt from
such requirements under Section 15c2-12(d)(1)(i). Consequently, the Authority will not enter into
any undertaking to provide continuing disclosure of any kind with respect to the Series 2010B Note.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and
after its approval and publication.
Section 8. Execution of Closing Certificates and Other Necessary Documents. The
President and the Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the purchaser
of the Series 2010B Note at the closing such certificates as are required as a condition of sale. In
addition, the President and the Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute
such other documents as may be necessary, depending on the terms of the Series 2010B Note.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 42
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 18, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 43
SCHEDULE A
Form of Note
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
No. R-1 $
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE PROJECT),
SERIES 2010B
Interest Rate
Maturity Date
Date of Original
Issue
3.99 % February 1, 2023 October __, 2010
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Northern Holding II, LLC or registered
assigns (the “Owner”), but solely from the sources and according to the terms described herein, the
principal sum of $935,000.00, and to pay interest thereon at the interest rate set forth above, as and
to the extent set forth herein. This Note is issued pursuant to the Resolution (defined hereafter) and
that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and Union Land II, LLC
(“Redeveloper”) dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of
July 10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment
thereto dated as of April 28, 2008, a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009, and a
Fifth Amendment thereto dated as of October 18, 2010 (collectively, the “Contract”). Capitalized
terms herein have the meaning assigned in the Contract unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on February 1, 2011 and
each February 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2023 (“Payment Dates”) solely from and to the
extent of the sources set forth in Section 3 hereof. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest,
and then to unpaid principal.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 44
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner as set forth in the Authorization
and Registration provisions of this Note, or such other address as the Owner may designate upon 30
days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of
the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public
and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year.
3. Available Tax Increment. Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date
solely from and in the amount of the Available Tax Increment. The term “Available Tax Increment”
means, on each Payment Date, 95 percent of the Tax Increment attributable to those portions of the
Redevelopment Property described in the Contract as Stage 1 and Stage 4 as described in Exhibit A
attached hereto (the “Stage 1 and 4 Property”) and received by the Authority from the County
pursuant to the Tax Increment Act in the twelve month period before each Payment Date. The
term Tax Increment does not include any amounts retained by or payable to the State auditor under
Section 469.177, subd. 11 of the Tax Increment Act, or any amounts described in Section 469.174,
subd. 25, clauses (2) through (4) of the Tax Increment Act.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Available Tax Increment will be paid on
any Payment Date only after payment or provision for payment on such Payment Date of the
principal of and interest on the Authority’s $3,495,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard
Village), Series 2010A (the “Series 2010A Bonds”), it being the Authority’s intent that the pledge of
Available Tax Increment to the Note is subordinate to the pledge of Tax Increment to the Series
2010A Bonds.
Failure by the Authority to pay all accrued interest on this Note on any Payment Date is
defined as and declared to be and to constitute an Event of Default under this Note; provided that
the Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment
Date from any source other than the Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay
all or any portion of principal on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default
hereunder as long as the Authority pays interest hereon to the extent of the Available Tax Increment.
4. Redemption of Note. This Note shall be subject to optional redemption, in whole
or in part, on any date, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of prepayment and
redemption.
5. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$935,000 issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the
Authority on October 18, 2010, for the purpose of providing money to refund the outstanding
principal amount of certain tax increment revenue notes of the Authority, pursuant to and in full
conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 45
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority
which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the
Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation
of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the
Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available
Tax Increment remaining after payment in full of all principal and interest then due on the Series
2010A Bonds, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this
Note or other costs incident hereto.
This Note has been designated by the Authority as a “qualified tax-exempt obligation” for
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
6. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons to one (1) Registered Owner. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain
limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Registrar kept for that
purpose at the principal office of the Authority, by the Registered Owner hereof in person or by such
Registered Owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a
written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Registered Owner.
Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Registered Owner of any tax, fee, or
governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange,
there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal
amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates.
This Note shall be transferred or assigned only to an “accredited investor” within the
meaning of Regulation D of the Securities and Exchange Commission and only upon execution and
delivery by the purchaser of an investment letter substantially in the form described in the
Resolution.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and
to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 46
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority has caused this Note to be executed with the manual or facsimile signatures
of its President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
Executive Director President
AUTHENTICATION AND REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
This is the Note described in the within mentioned Resolution. The ownership of the
unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the Registrar, in the name of
the person last listed below.
Date of Registration Registered Owner Signature of Finance Director
______________, 2010
________________________
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 47
Exhibit A to Note
Stage 1 and 4 Property
Stage 1 Property:
Units P001 through P101 inclusive, S201 through S219 inclusive, S301 through S319 inclusive,
S401 through S419 inclusive, S503 through S517 inclusive, Units 201 through 219 inclusive, Units
301 through 319 inclusive, Units 401 through 419 inclusive and Units 503 through 519 inclusive,
and all of the common element in CIC Number 1817, a Condominium, Harmony Vista At
Hoigaard Village CIC Plat, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And
Unit 1 and all of the common element in CIC Number 1816, a Condominium, Harmony Vista
Commerical at Hoigaard Village, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Stage 4 Property:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Hoigaard Village 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds (Hoigaard Village) Series 2010A & 2010B
Page 48
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the resolution approving the Fifth Amendment to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment By and Between St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Union Land
II LLC, KAN & Associates, LLC, Webster Group, LLC and Camerata LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the proposed extensions to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land
II, et al as specified in the proposed Fifth Amendment?
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months the Hoigaard Village developer (Union Land II LLC) and the
EDA/City have been focused on putting in place the permanent financing for the project. The final
terms for the tax-exempt tax increment notes (TIF Notes) have been completed and final approval of
the issuance of the TIF Notes is scheduled for EDA action on October 18th.
While project financing appears resolved, market conditions have held back completion of the
Hoigaard Village project. The final two elements of Hoigaard Village, (the 58-unit condo building
called “the Adagio” and the 22 rowhomes called “Medley Row”) were expected to break ground this
month and be completed by December 31, 2011. That schedule was memorialized in the August
14, 2009 Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract. These commencement and
completion dates are clearly not going to be met and the Contract needs to be amended to reflect
that fact.
Therefore, a Fifth Amendment is needed to simply extend the deadlines for construction on the
Adagio and Medley Row elements of Hoigaard Village for one year. The purpose of the one year
extension is to eliminate any technical default that could disrupt the permanent financing that has
been put in place; and to provide time for the City to work with the developer to decide how to
complete the undeveloped portions of the project.
The two largest components of the Hoigaard Village project, Harmony Vista (74 units and 25,000
SF of commercial space); and the 220 unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common elements
(contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all complete. The
yet to be completed portions of the project are the smaller elements, the 58-unit Adagio and the 22
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 2
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
row homes called Medley Row. Both the Harmony Vista and the Camerata buildings are now fully
leased.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The tax-exempt TIF notes scheduled for consideration on October 18th will reimburse the
developer for eligible development expenses related to the completed portions of the Hoigaard
Village project. The EDA is not obligated to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses related to
the Adagio and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village until they are completed; and, the
amount of reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by the development.
Until the Adagio and Medley Row project components are constructed they will not be contributing
to the tax increment available for reimbursement of the Redeveloper’s TIF-eligible expenses. It
should be noted that the Redeveloper already has incurred the expenses for which it is eligible for
reimbursement. The Redeveloper will have to carry these costs until the development is completed.
Thus, the Redeveloper has every incentive to fully complete the project sooner rather than later.
The proposed contract extensions reflect the current market reality relating to condominium and
townhome sales in the Twin Cities. The construction delay means that the Redeveloper’s
reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to Stages 2 and 3 will likewise be delayed.
Next Steps
A study session discussion of completion of the Hoigaard Village project will be scheduled for
November. The Redeveloper will be in attendance and options for how best to proceed and realistic
schedules for completing the project will be the focus of the discussion.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC, et al.
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 October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 3
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIFTH AMENDMENT OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND UNION LAND II LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and has approved a modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Elmwood
Village Tax Increment Financing District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.1791 (the “TIF Act”), made up of the area to be developed by Union Land II LLC, KAN &
Associates, LLC, Webster Group, LLC, and Camerata, LLC (collectively, the “Redeveloper”) and
certain other property within the Project (the “Redevelopment Property”).
1.02. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of July
10, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated
as of April 28, 2008, and a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009 (the “Agreement”),
whereunder the Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or
reimburse certain costs incurred by Union Land in connection with the development of four stages of
minimum improvements to the Redevelopment Property (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.03. Due to delays in construction of the Minimum Improvements and continued
instability in the market for condominium units, the parties propose to execute a Fifth Amendment
to the Agreement (the “Fifth Amendment”) to modify certain provisions of the Agreement.
Section 2. Fifth Amendment Approved.
2.01. The Fifth Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials
shall be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director are hereby
authorized to execute, on behalf of the Authority, the Fifth Amendment.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 4
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
October 18, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 5
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This Fifth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) is dated
as of October 18, 2010, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and UNION LAND II LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company (“Union Land”), KAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC (“KAN”),
WEBSTER GROUP, LLC (Webster”), and CAMERATA, LLC (“Camerata” and, together with
Union Land, KAN, and Webster, as their interests appear, the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Redevelopment Project”) and the Elmwood Village Tax Increment Financing District within the
Redevelopment Project (the “TIF District”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (the “HRA Act”) and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended (the “TIF Act”).
B. The Authority and Union Land executed a certain Contract for Private Redevelopment,
dated as of March 6, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment thereto dated as of July 10, 2006, a
Second Amendment thereto dated as of March 5, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated as of April
28, 2008, and a Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of August 17, 2009 (the “Contract”), whereunder
the Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain
costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of four stages of minimum
improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on certain property within the Redevelopment Project
and TIF District (the “Redevelopment Property”).
C. In accordance with the Contract, and pursuant to separate Assignment and
Assumptions of Contract for Private Redevelopment, each dated as of January 12, 2007, Union Land
has assigned (i) to KAN, Union Land’s rights in and obligations under the Contract with respect to the
Phase II Land and Phase II Minimum Improvements, and (ii) to Webster, Union Land’s rights in and
obligations under the Contract with respect to the Stage 2 Land and Stage 2 Minimum Improvements;
and pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Contract for Private Redevelopment dated as of
June 1, 2007, KAN has assigned to Camerata, KAN’s rights in and obligations under the Contract with
respect to the Stage 4 Land and the Stage 4 Minimum Improvements.
D. The Redeveloper has fully constructed the Stage 1 and Stage 4 Minimum
Improvements in accordance with the Contract.
E. Due to ongoing unfavorable economic conditions, the Redeveloper has requested
and the Authority has agreed to modify certain terms and conditions of the Contract with regard to
the construction commencement and completion dates for the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum
Improvements, as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall
have the meanings given them in the Contract.
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 6
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 4.3(a) of the Contract. Section 4.3(a) of the Contract is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall
commence and complete construction of the Minimum Improvements, with the specified minimum
market values for Stage 2 and Stage 3 as set forth in the related Assessment Agreement, in accordance
with the following schedule:
The Redeveloper shall cause the parcels on which the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Minimum Improvements
are to be constructed to be seeded and mowed until commencement of construction of said stages.
2. Amendment to Section 7.3(b)(iv) and Section 7.3(c)(v) of the Contract. Sections
7.3(b)(iv) and 7.3(c)(v) of the Contract are amended to read as follows:
(iv) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, consistent with Section
469.1763, Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, as amended by Laws 2009, Chapter 88, Article 5, Section 8, if
Principal Advances for the maximum principal amount of the Initial Notes (or any notes or bonds
issued to refund the Initial Notes) have not been entered on the Principal Advance Ledger (i.e.
“registered”) by December 31, 2012, no additional Principal Advances will be made and the Authority
has no further obligation with respect to such un-registered amounts.
(v) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, consistent with Section
469.1763, Subdivision 3 of the TIF Act, as amended by Laws 2009, Chapter 88, Article 5, Section 8,
Initial Notes (or any notes or bonds issued to refund the Initial Notes) must be sold to third parties by
December 31, 2012. Further, if the proceeds of the Initial Notes (or any notes or bonds issued to
refund the Initial Notes) are not spent by December 31, 2012, or within a reasonable temporary period
(as that term is used in Section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), the
amount of the proceeds not expended prior to the expiration of these time frames will be used to prepay
the Initial Notes (or any notes or bonds issued to refund the Initial Notes).
3. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
Phase/Stage Commencement Completion
Phase I /Stage 1 June 1, 2006 February 28, 2008
Phase I /Stage 2 October 1, 2011 December 31, 2012
Phase II /Stage 3 October 1, 2011 December 31, 2012
Phase II/Stage 4 July 1, 2007 September 1, 2008
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 7
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
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 Phillip Finkelstein and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the
Authority.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 8
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
Union Land II, LLC Camerata, LLC
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its _______________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by _________________, the _________________ of Union Land II LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by _________________, the _________________ of Camerata LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.7b) Page 9
Subject: Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
KAN & Associates, LLC Webster Group, LLC
By _________________________ By
Its ____________________ Its _______________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by ________________, the __________________ of KAN & Associates, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2010,
by _________________, the _________________ of Webster Group, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Senior
Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
1. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Mr. Olson provided an overview of configurations for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue interchange.
He explained that a three-day value engineering study was held by Mn/DOT to gain additional
input on how to add value to the project as well as cost saving measures. Based on that input, a new
concept design was suggested for a single point urban interchange with roundabouts that remains
within the existing right-of-way and which uses one roundabout under the bridge overpass. Mr.
Olson advised that the City’s consultant examined the viability of this new concept design and made
several refinements to address vehicle and pedestrian movements.
Councilmember Ross asked how this new concept design meets the needs of Republic Avenue
businesses. Mr. Olson advised it no longer has right-of-way or access impacts in that area so
Republic Avenue would remain open and operate as it does today.
Councilmember Santa asked about impact to the apartment complex. Mr. Olson advised it remains
within the existing right-of-way and retaining walls would be along the main line of the road, not
encroaching on the apartment property.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the pedestrian and bicycle access compared to the previous
option. Mr. Olson stated the last option was more pedestrian friendly as this new design adds more
street crossings along Louisiana Ave. The suggested concept has been refined to pull the roundabout
to the north so it is not under the bridge, similar to the Highway 61 roundabout in Cottage Grove
that Council toured last January. He noted this option is not a full roundabout under the bridge
since that is not really needed. However, there are still full roundabouts at both Walker Street and
Lake Street.
Councilmember Mavity stated she found the new concept design to be less pedestrian friendly
because of the number of crossings required for bicyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Olson explained that
traffic entering the roundabout has to yield to traffic already in the roundabout, including
pedestrians and bicyclists, so traffic will be slow at pedestrian crossings. He used an aerial map to
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes September 20, 2010
describe the pathway to access trails, noting the crosswalks are set back from the roundabout to allow
the driver to make decisions about pedestrian traffic before entering the roundabout. In addition,
interchanges will be striped for pedestrian crossings to alert drivers of their need to yield.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the potential for flooding. Mr. Olson advised that
Louisiana Avenue will be lowered five to seven feet to minimize raising Highway 7, but it will be
designed so as not to be subject to flooding. In addition, Louisiana Avenue north of Walker St
currently floods during significant rain storms. This situation will be corrected with this project
Councilmember Sanger asked if the new concept design affords more or fewer opportunities for
economic development. Mr. Olson stated it will offer more opportunities since there is no taking of
property in the northeast quadrant and creates a larger parcel in the southwest quadrant.
Councilmember Sanger asked, as a practical matter, whether the City has any options since this
design came out of Mn/DOT’s mandated process. Mr. Rardin stated the Council can make the
decision on which layout to approve, noting the last option was estimated to cost $22 million.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that even at $22 million he does not think the City can afford
this project without significant contribution from federal and county entities, noting this project is
being considered to accommodate light rail.
Mayor Jacobs agreed this project cannot move forward with only City funding. He noted the Met
Council contributed $7 million and advised of other entitles being approached for contribution.
Mayor Jacobs stated he supports the new concept design, being referred to as the “peanut design,”
because it better accommodates emergency vehicle access to Methodist Hospital, is more efficient,
uses less property, and is easier to navigate.
Councilmember Santa concurred that the “peanut design” solves problems that existed in the last
option since it stays within the right-of-way, does not wall in the apartment building, businesses
maintain access, and there is more opportunity for economic development. However, she remained
concerned about ponding and flooding issues.
Councilmember Mavity agreed the new concept design is far superior and challenged staff to look at
pedestrian safety, especially in the south roundabout, to address the number of crossings and create
an easy pedestrian path.
Councilmember Sanger concurred and asked staff to assure that medians at designated bicycle
crossings are wide enough to accommodate a tandem or bicycle pulling a child trailer. She stated the
value engineering study produced positive results and recommended it be replicated for large
infrastructure projects.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that whatever is done with this interchange, it will still be
difficult for pedestrians and bicyclist. He stated the design may need separate pedestrian/bicycle
bridges and some “do overs” may be needed after the project is designed.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes September 20, 2010
Councilmember Mavity emphasized that it is critical to consider pedestrian and bicycle use as part of
the plan to assure it is safe for children to cross. Mayor Jacobs agreed with the need to assure that
pedestrian and bicycle traffic are correctly addressed at the beginning because people will be using
bicycles, rollerblades, and walking in this area.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the new “peanut” concept design and staff was
asked to obtain input from the Three Rivers Park District regarding pedestrian access.
2. Bidding and Construction / Project Management
Mr. Harmening introduced the topic, noting that as part of the AMES settlement agreement the
Council indicated it wanted to discuss bidding and construction project management.
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and referenced attachments and the one-page summary
contained in the meeting packet for the Council’s consideration.
Mayor Jacobs asked the Council to indicate the topics they would like staff to address. During
Council discussion, the following topics were identified:
• Provide a “Construction 101” refresher course.
• Information on the contractor’s experience, background, ability to come in at cost, and if they
have been sued. How is the lowest responsible bidder vetted by staff?
• What is the statutory definition of “lowest and responsible bidder?”
• Inclusion of diversity language for women and minorities.
• What is Mn/DOT’s role and responsibility when they act as the project engineer? What is the
role of City staff in terms of monitoring?
• Do we need to use Mn/DOT to oversee projects?
• What is the City role or responsibility on other agency projects?
• How far can the City push a project when it is being managed by another government entity?
• What is the role of a project engineer?
• What rights and responsibilities does the Council have under State law to reject bids, accept a
bid, or rebid the project?
• What is a “change order” and at what level does it become a change order instead of the
ordinary course of doing business?
• What is the approval process for a change order?
• How can the City limit liability for change orders that it does not initiate?
• Can we eliminate, ignore, or refuse change orders we do not like?
• Options for mandatory inclusion of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) to bring parties to the
table.
• Should a problem arise, when and how is the Council notified to assure there is no time lapse?
• When do private utilities have responsibility and what is their role and responsibility?
• When should the City hire a construction manager or use independent reviews to help assess
what should happen and what it should cost?
• Projects should always consider the issues of pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes September 20, 2010
• What tools have been used in the past and what are the benefits of those tools and approaches?
What has worked well and not worked well?
• What is the general process by staff to arrive at the engineer’s cost estimate?
• Provide a summary of recent projects in terms of estimated costs, low bid, and final costs.
• Provide a summary of past bids comparing low bid amounts to next higher bid amounts to
understand impact of change orders.
• What questions should be asked when the low bid is substantially lower than competitors?
• Provide information on processes that have worked well in the past.
The Council discussed that its purpose was not to micromanage projects and that the City had an
excellent infrastructure due to the quality of its staff. Staff was asked to assure that all members of
the Council are present when this topic is scheduled for discussion. It was the consensus of the City
Council to direct staff to provide the Council with further information regarding the topics raised
during discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmember absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Community Development Director (Mr.
Locke), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guests: Mr. Utley, Briggs & Morgan
1a. Pledge of Allegiance presented by the Boy Scout Pack 225.
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes September 7, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein requested the following addition to page 1, the last paragraph of
2a: “Councilmember Finkelstein noted the Council did not have a meeting last week
because of Labor Day. The purpose of Labor Day is to thank working people and retirees
because without their efforts, there would not have been health insurance and, over time, a
5-day work week, pensions, and indeed it took the Teamster’s Strike in 1924 that resulted in
the death of four being shot by police cannons that led to the adoption of the Labor
Relations Act. He commented that we need to remember what led to its passage and asked
that all pause and reflect on that.”
Councilmember Sanger requested that the second to the last paragraph on page 9 be correct
to indicate “…the City was receiving $2.1 million in LGA…”
Councilmember Ross requested that the last paragraph on page 4 be revised to state:
“Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Omodt and stated she would like more
information on how similar organizations work…” She also requested that the last
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes September 20, 2010
paragraph on page 7 be revised to add: “Mr. Culp also stated he had not given much
thought and did not know about guest parking.”
The minutes were approved as revised.
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. 10-095, authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 3740 Pennsylvania Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
55426 – PI.D. 17-117-21-33-0087
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-096, authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 4240 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 –
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0208
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-097, approving the Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between Duke Realty Limited Partnership and The
Excelsior Group related to The West End project.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-098, 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 Minutes April 21, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve
the Agenda as amended to remove item 6c and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to
waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and Final Bond Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Private
Activity Revenue Bonds for Urban Park
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes September 20, 2010
Mr. Heintz advised it is consistent with City policy to issue private activity revenue bonds
and recommended the Council hold a public hearing and adopt the final bond issue
resolution for the Urban Park project.
John Utley, Kennedy & Graven, reviewed that the City had financed Urban Park in 2002
and West Suburban is now requesting the City issue private activity revenue bonds for the
purpose of refunding existing debt from that 2002 bond issue. He explained the rationale
for this request due to the outstanding debt being highly rated and secured by a letter of
credit but the Bank of America no longer wants to secure the debt. Mr. Utley advised this is
a revenue bond, not a general obligation debt, and payable solely by revenues derived by this
privately owned project. If this project gets into trouble, they are not permitted to come to
the City for its assets or taxing power. Mr. Utley assured the Council that this kind of debt
has no impact on the City’s own borrowing and cannot impact its bond rating.
Mayor Jacobs noted this is a revenue bond so one-eighth of one percent of the outstanding
amount is paid annually into the City’s rehabilitation fund.
Councilmember Mavity asked whether there are any limits to the amount of revenue bonds
the City is able to issue per year or in total. Mr. Utley explained that theoretically there is
not a limit; however, the federal government severely limits who qualifies as borrowers for
this option. Councilmember Mavity noted this creates another way for the City to facilitate
affordable housing and, in this case, without City money being involved.
Councilmember Sanger concurred and noted that in this project, affordable housing will be
mixed in with market rate housing.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Final Bond Resolution No. 10-099 authorizing the Issuance of Private Activity Revenue
Bonds for Urban Park.
The motion passed 6-0.
6b. Public Hearing – Wine & 3.2 Liquor License – Wok in the Park
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report recommending approval of a wine and 3.2 liquor
license for Wok in the Park. She stated this business has been open since September 1,
2010, and is under the ownership of Hannah Johnson, Charis Fishbein, and Grace Johnson.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes September 20, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein noted the Police Department conducted an investigation of all
holding the license and found no concerns.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, 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 3305 Utah Avenue South with the license term through
March 1, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0.
6c. This item was removed from the agenda.
6d. Public Hearing to Consider 2011 Fees
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and asked whether the Council agrees with the
proposed revisions to the 2011 fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees charged for
programs and services called for by ordinance. She explained that some fees were adjusted in
accordance with the City’s ordinance while other fees are set administratively. All fees are
reviewed each year based on comparisons with other metro area cities, changes in regulations,
and to make sure the City’s business costs are covered. Ms. Stroth advised that the proposed
fee increases were incorporated in the proposed 2011 budget. Second reading is scheduled
for October 4, 2010, and if approved would become effective January 1, 2011.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for 2011 and set Second Reading for October 4,
2010.
Councilmember Mavity referenced language pertaining to community development fees and
the installation of permanent signs. She asked when those fees would apply and if they
would be assessed to individual home owners. Mr. Locke explained the sign ordinance varies
by zoning district so residential signs would be for an apartment complex or something more
substantial than a single-family home. He advised that signs such as “permit parking only”
are considered city signs and would not be assessed to home owners.
Councilmember Sanger stated support to increase fees to cover staff costs.
The motion passed 6-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes September 20, 2010
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Resolution to Join ICLEI – Local Government for Sustainability
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and explained that ICLEI is an association of local,
national, and regional government organizations that promote sustainable development and
practices. She explained that locally designed initiatives are an effective way to obtain
sustainability goals. By joining ICLEI the City will have access to ICLEI’s technical
assistance including software to comprehensively measure all energy use, water and solid
waste citywide, to determine the community’s carbon footprint. The membership fee is
$600 and the draft resolution indicates the City will take a leadership role in supporting
sustainable development.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive the
reading and adopt Resolution No. 10-100 to become a member of ICLEI’s Local
Governments for Sustainability and begin undertaking five milestones to reduce energy use,
greenhouse gas, and air pollution emissions in the City.
Mayor Jacobs thanked staff for assuring the City will become more environmentally
responsible and reduce its carbon footprint.
The motion passed 6-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded all of the Lenox waffle dinner, craft and bake sale this Friday at the
Community Center.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, and Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Parks &
Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Public Works
(Mr. Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr.
Morrison), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Director of Inspections
(Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Utilities Superintendent (Mr.
Anderson), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Communications Coordinator (Mr.
Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Jim McComb, McComb Group, Ltd.; Planning Commissioners Rick Person, Lynne
Carper, Carl Robertson, and Claudia Johnson-Madison; Eric Evenson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District Administrator; Becky Houdek, Assistant Planner, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District;
Pamela Blixt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board Member; Richard Miller, Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District Board Member; Brian Shekleton, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Board Member; Jeff Casale, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board Member.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 4 and 11, 2010
Mayor Jacobs thanked staff for the tour of the recently renovated Municipal Service Center. He
stated the improvements to the building will provide the City with increased capabilities to continue
to deliver public services.
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for October 4th and the
proposed study session agenda for October 11th. He stated that at the October 4th special study
session, staff will provide an update regarding the proposed Convention and Visitors Bureau,
including a review of the formal documents necessary to create a Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the October 4th study session discussion include a sample
budget and possible uses of the money.
2. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Planning Commission members for attending.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
Commercial Corridor Market Study
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and introduced Jim McComb from McComb Group,
Ltd.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the commercial market corridor study was an outcome of updating the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Conducted by McComb Group, the study represents the first step in
looking at the City’s commercial areas, to help in evaluating the viability of these areas, and creating
a long term vision for these areas.
Mr. McComb presented an overview of ten commercial corridors analyzed as part of his study and
stated that one of the major findings of this report is that the City has a surplus of retail space but a
shortage of the kind of space retailers are looking for. He indicated that the focus of the study was
intended to provide the City with guidelines for bringing its retail space back into balance and
eliminating some of the less desirable buildings and replacing them with some other use. He
presented a comparison of the City’s commercial corridors and competitive shopping areas tenant
mix as of March 2010 and indicated that the vacancy rate in the commercial corridors is 11.3%
compared to 6.7% in the competitive shopping areas. He specifically discussed the Lake Street and
Walker Street commercial corridor, noting that this area has suffered the most serious damage as
growth has occurred elsewhere in the City and this area presents a number of opportunities for
changing the land use and the light rail stations may have an impact on that.
Mr. McComb discussed ways in which the City can nurture small businesses, and he reviewed four
areas that appear to be suitable for new entrepreneurs, including Excelsior Boulevard East,
Minnetonka and County Road 25, Texa-Tonka, and Excelsior Boulevard West. He stated that the
City can work with small businesses by encouraging a good location, providing loans and/or grants
for store front improvements and interior build out, providing access to business expertise, and
considering a retail incubator with flexible occupancy cost.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the City is interested in nurturing small businesses, but
questioned how much of the City’s time, effort, and money should be spent on a particular project if
it is determined this might not be the best use of the City’s resources.
The Council and Planning Commission discussed the Excelsior and Grand area and the City’s desire
to draw additional businesses in to this area. Discussion also took place regarding Texa-Tonka.
Councilmember Mavity asked what tools and incentives are available to the City to nurture business
as well as the associated costs to encourage businesses to locate in the City.
Mr. McComb stated that the Excelsior and Grand area includes a lot of small stores that are too
small to create a viable business, and the format of retail condos does not work because the flexibility
on how to size the spaces and accommodate tenants is lost because buildings may be owned
individually. He suggested that this area would be a good location for a retail incubator project. He
also discussed the Lake Street and Walker Street area and stated that it may be prudent to conduct a
case study in this area.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
Mr. Locke stated that through the Comprehensive Plan planning process, staff felt it was important
to have an understanding of market conditions and to undertake a more strategic kind of planning
for these key areas. He added that Lake Street and Walker was identified by the Council as a
priority in the context of market conditions, how to make this area stronger, and its economic role in
the community.
Mayor Jacobs questioned whether the City should look at re-guiding and/or rezoning certain areas of
the City based upon the findings contained in the study. McMonigal explained that this was the
first step in studying these areas and re-guiding and/or rezoning may be an eventual outcome.
Supreme Court Case on Variance Standards
Mr. Scott stated that the June 2010 State Supreme Court ruling will impact a city’s ability to grant
variances. He pointed out that the City does not receive a large number of variance requests on an
annual basis. He discussed the Supreme Court decision and presented a handout prepared by the
League of Minnesota Cities explaining variances and the statutory authority for granting variances.
He added that the legislature may address the decision during its next session; the legislature has
authority to amend the language in the statute to give flexibility back to cities in granting variances.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has the ability to amend its ordinances in some way so that
a variance would not be required in the first place.
Mr. Scott stated that the City could use the Conditional Use Permit procedure if it met certain
criteria.
Ms. McMonigal stated that modifications could also be made to the Planned Unit Development
ordinance. She stated that staff would like to review the City’s previous variance requests and keep
track of any inquiries received by the City, and then determine if changes to the ordinance are
required.
Business Park Zoning
Mr. Fulton presented an overview of the proposed new land use category, “Business Park,” and
stated this land use designation is intended to be focused primarily around the Beltline
industrial/light rail station and around the Louisiana Avenue industrial/light rail station areas. He
indicated that this designation will provide an opportunity for business owners to expand their
businesses or change their businesses to respond to market conditions. He stated that staff intends to
present the proposed Business Park use and design standards to the Planning Commission in
October, followed by a study session discussion with the County in early 2011. He added that staff
will also be working closely with the business owners in drafting the zoning district language.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue to draft the Business Park zoning
district ordinance.
Councilmember Mavity requested that staff include resident input in the public process for the
Business Park zoning district ordinance.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
3. Minnehaha Creek Discussion – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and introduced Becky Houdek, Assistant Planner for
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Ms. Houdek presented background information regarding Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) and discussed MCWD’s proposed re-meander project to the west of Louisiana Avenue.
She stated that this area of the creek is in a highly urbanized area and the creek is seeing a lot more
runoff and stormwater volume. She advised that the goals of the re-meander project include
restoring the natural meanders where possible, reducing streambank erosion, enhancing the creek
buffer, incorporating stormwater management practices, improving habitat, and increasing public
awareness and appreciation of the resource. She discussed the expected benefits of the project,
including water quality and water quantity improvement by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs
to the creek, reducing volumes and rates of runoff, improved upland and instream habitat, improved
vegetative diversity, and increased potential for recreational uses by providing greater access to the
creek. She added that these goals relate well to Goal 8 of the City’s Parks and Open Space Chapter
which recognizes Minnehaha Creek as a shared community asset, as well as the City’s goals
contained in the 2009 Surface Water Management Plan.
Mr. Evenson stated that MCWD is working to design the re-meander with an understanding that at
some time in the future, there may be a trail along this portion of the creek.
Councilmember Sanger encouraged MCWD to not only design the area for trails, but to also design
the creek so that it can be used for canoeing.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the efforts of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District to continue the re-meander process for Minnehaha Creek to the west of Louisiana Avenue.
Councilmember Mavity stated that this project represents a great opportunity for the City to
showcase its environmental stewardship. She asked the City to give consideration to providing more
education for residents that goes beyond the Nature Center education programs and that brings this
into the neighborhoods, particularly along the creek, regarding water quality and invasive species.
Councilmember Sanger requested information regarding the work of MCWD to alleviate the cattails
at Bass Lake and to remedy the stink at Twin Lakes.
Mr. Evenson stated that this year, there has been significantly more vegetation growing in the lakes,
either due to the rainfall or warmer temperatures. He explained that pond scum is a tiny plant that
is actually a good plant for the environment, and the pond is keeping the lake clean. He stated that
MCWD checks the lakes and ponds routinely and noted that Twin Lakes may be due for a cleanout
in the near future.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that the Diamond Lake neighborhood recently received a grant to
clean up the lake in that area. She asked if there are opportunities available for other neighborhoods
to access some type of grant for a similar project.
Mr. Evenson explained that the grant to the Diamond Lake Improvement Association came through
the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR); the Association is partnering with Hedberg
Landscaping to put in stormwater best management features on private properties and the residents
are doing all of the work. He encouraged residents to work together on these types of issues and
added that MCWD is always willing to meet with residents and provide help to get them started.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening suggested holding a joint meeting with the School Board on Monday, November
29th; one possible topic for that meeting is the freight rail work currently being conducted.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will contact the Councilmembers regarding scheduling a Council
workshop during the first quarter of 2011.
Mr. Harmening advised that he will be holding a workshop with Department Directors and
Supervisory Staff on Thursday and Friday this week to discuss various issues associated with the
City.
Mr. Harmening reported that he received an email from Jamie LaPray, on behalf of Safety in the
Park, requesting an appearance before the City Council at its second meeting in October; Ms.
LaPray has indicated she would like to share residents’ perspective with the Council regarding the
MNS Study.
Councilmember Sanger stated it was her understanding that Safety in the Park representatives want
to present information to the Council both about the scope of the petition they have going around
as well as their observations about the PMT process.
Councilmember Mavity stated she felt the Council should have an agenda item on this, but was not
sure that having this on the agenda prior to the completion of the PMT’s work was appropriate and
the Council should not inject itself into this process.
Councilmember Sanger indicated the PMT process could continue for several months. She stated
she was concerned that if residents have a lot of concerns, she would rather learn about those
concerns sooner rather than later so that mid-course corrections can be made.
Mr. Harmening stated there are three ongoing studies, the MNS study, the Kenilworth study, and
the third study is a revisit of the 2009 study. He stated it is likely that the Kenilworth study and the
revisit of the 2009 study will be done sooner than the MNS study, probably in a month or two.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
Councilmember Sanger stated that the bigger issue appears to be the process by which information is
being discussed or not discussed and the way information is being disseminated.
Mr. Harmening advised that staff will be attending a meeting this Wednesday with Safety in the
Park and the County to talk about the process and to understand more specifically what the flaws
may be.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would prefer to see what happens at the meeting on Wednesday and then
make a decision regarding Safety in the Park’s request; he would also like to have full Council weigh-
in on this matter. He indicated he wants to have an understanding of the specific purpose for the
meeting with Safety in the Park as well as what it is they want to share with the Council, how long it
will take, and what they expect to come out of the meeting with Council. He added he was okay
with them coming to a study session meeting rather than a formal Council meeting.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he did not object to meeting with them, but did not want this
issue to get caught up in the election. He suggested holding the meeting with Safety in the Park
sometime after the elections and to invite them to a study session meeting.
The Council discussed the ongoing freight rail studies and staff’s time commitments to various
requests for information.
Councilmember Mavity stated she wants to get a better feel for what the requested meeting is about
and to make certain that the meeting is tied to the processes in place. She added she does not want
to feel manipulated as part of the process.
Councilmember Sanger noted that the goals of Safety in the Park are consistent with the two
resolutions passed by Council.
It was the consensus of the City Council to defer action on Ms. LaPray’s request for a meeting with
the City Council pending staff’s meeting with Safety in the Park representatives and others on
Wednesday, September 29th, and to defer action on the meeting request pending full Council input.
The City Council conducted its meeting check-in.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. August 2010 Monthly Financial Report
6. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
7. Project Report – W. 44th Street Reconstruction – Project 2005-0500
8. Update on Freight Rail Topics
9. Update on Hoigaard Village Project TIF Notes and Redevelopment Contract with
Union Land II LLC
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes September 27, 2010
10. Redevelopment Project & EDA Contract Status Report: 2nd & 3rd Quarter 2010
11. West End Apartments Parkland and Trail Dedication
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 4, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross (arrived at 6:33 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational
Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Vicki Stute, consultant, and Bruce Nustad, President, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce.
1. Formation of a Convention and Visitors Bureau
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and discussed the public process undertaken to date with
local hoteliers regarding the formation of a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), including a
meeting last week which provided an opportunity for large stakeholders to learn more about the
CVB. He stated that the formal next steps include adopting a Lodging Tax Ordinance imposing a
tax of up to 3% on gross lodging receipts.
Mr. Hunt presented the proposed Concept Plan, Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, draft Operating
Budget, Ordinance establishing a local lodging tax, and Operating Agreement for Council
consideration. He explained that the Bylaws propose an initial Board of Directors comprised of not
less than nine and no more than fifteen directors, with two directors from the local hotel industry,
three directors from the general business community, the Mayor and City Manager of St. Louis
Park, one representative nominated by TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, and one director
representing the nonprofit community of St. Louis Park.
Mr. Scott advised that State law does not allow the City or the EDA to be the incorporator of the
CVB nor does it allow the City to act as fiscal agent of the CVB.
Mr. Hunt discussed the proposed Operating Agreement between the City and the CVB, and
explained that particularly during the first year of operation, City staff would need to provide a
number of services to the entity to assist in getting it up and operating. He stated that the proposed
Ordinance would impose a tax of 3% on gross lodging proceeds within the city; these proceeds will
provide the entity’s operating revenue, augmented by additional advertising sales revenue and other
partnership and grant opportunities.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes October 4, 2010
Ms. Stute stated that it will be important for the CVB to have a powerful website since the website
will serve as the primary information portal for tourists and other interested persons.
Mr. Hunt indicated that people could make their room reservations through the CVB website and
this feature is one way to demonstrate value to the hoteliers.
Councilmember Ross asked if it is possible to extend the tax to include restaurants or alcohol sales, as
a way of spreading out the tax and/or to lower the tax.
Mr. Harmening replied that the City is statutorily allowed to form a CVB without special
legislation, but if an alcohol or food tax were imposed, the City would be required to go to the
legislature to obtain authority to impose such a tax.
Councilmember Sanger suggested having the ability to make restaurant reservations via the CVB
website. She also encouraged visiting local companies that bring a lot of employees into town or that
relocate employees here as an additional area of emphasis in terms of marketing.
Mr. Hunt stated that it is expected that the president of the new organization will introduce the
CVB to local companies as well as to companies outside the City limits.
Councilmember Mavity applauded the goals of the CVB and stated that she would like to have a
way of measuring outcomes in a succinct fashion to determine if the entity is successful. She asked if
an increase in room demand is one way of measuring whether the CVB is successful.
Mr. Hunt stated that the overall goal of the CVB is to increase exposure to St. Louis Park in the
local, regional and national marketplace and to generate additional economic activity, which
includes additional room rentals, additional retail sales, and additional restaurant sales.
Councilmember Sanger pointed out that it will be up to the CVB’s Board of Directors to determine
the goals of the entity and to determine whether it is successful.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City’s financial involvement in the CVB will be nothing other
than staff time in collecting the lodging tax.
Mr. Harmening stated that this is correct and added the City will have no liability other than
responsibility for collecting the 3% tax every month and disbursing 95% of the revenue to the CVB,
as stated in the Operating Agreement. He added that the Operating Agreement provides the City
with the right to terminate the Operating Agreement if for some reason it is determined that the
CVB is not working as it should.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the CVB Board of Directors include a reasonable number of
women and minorities.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes October 4, 2010
Councilmember Santa stated that it will be important that the CVB make connections with
transportation, shuttle buses, etc. and that the website and other printed materials include
information on how to get around town and how to get to places with options including public
transportation.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he felt it was important that a couple of the CVB boardmembers
be residents of the community.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the CVB focus on reaching out to clients of the various
medical institutions, including Park Nicollet. She also suggested that the CVB consider offering
packages such as hotel and theater packages.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the City’s cable channels could be reserved for CVB use.
Mr. Zwilling stated that the City has quite a bit of leverage on programming for its community
channels.
Councilmember Ross asked how competitive the City’s hotel rates are compared with other hotel
prices in the area, including Minneapolis or Bloomington. She stated she does not want to see the
City price itself out of the market.
Mr. Hunt advised that the price of rooms themselves would not change and based on research, the
City is very competitive with other first ring suburbs. He added that the advantage of St. Louis
Park’s hotels is that they are less expensive than downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul hotels, are in
close proximity to many attractions and are convenient to get to.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the formal creation of a
Convention and Visitors Bureau to serve St. Louis Park.
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 4, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth),
Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Police Chief
(Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Ms. Dreier), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Daniel Kubes Retirement Recognition Resolution
Mayor Jacobs recited a plaque recognizing the contributions of and expressing appreciation
to Daniel Kubes for his 27 years of police service. He extended the City Council’s thanks to
Mr. Kubes.
Chief Luse expressed the Police Department’s thanks and appreciation to Mr. Kubes and
congratulated him on his retirement after 27 years of service. He stated that Mr. Kubes
performed a difficult job with kindness and compassion and brought value to the
community.
Mr. Kubes thanked the City Council and staff and stated that he always felt the Police
Department had the support of the City Council.
2b. 2010 Evergreen Awards
Mr. Vaughan stated that the Evergreen Award is presented each year to recognize properties
that are uniquely designed and landscaped. He indicated that each award winner will have a
sign placed on their property indicating that they have won an Evergreen Award.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
Mayor Jacobs and Mr. Vaughan presented the 2010 Evergreen Awards to Julie Sweitzer and
Steve Kahlenbeck, 8925 West 31st Street, Catherine and Jon Gjerde, 3248 Alabama Avenue
South, Rex and Linda McKee, 3251 Louisiana Avenue South, and Dr. David Hertelendy,
4221 Minnetonka Boulevard.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2010
Councilmember Santa requested that the second full paragraph on page 3 be revised to state
“Councilmember Santa requested that Council receive an update historical information on
its work with respect to storm water, trails and sidewalks, the flood proofing program, Reilly
Tar, and the City’s efforts regarding forestry and Emerald Ash Borer.”
Councilmember Mavity requested that the seventh paragraph on page 2 be revised to state
“Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to see more focus on walk/bike initiatives.
She indicated she would also like to find ways to allow more citizen input into the overall
process. She indicated that there needs to be a venue or some way for residents to provide
input, share information with other residents, and ask discuss questions on environmental
issues. in order to support the sustainability movement. She stated that creating a way for
residents to share ideas in an interactive fashion will help promote and realize the City’s goal
of environmental sustainability and stewardship.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes of September 13, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the
regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 10-101 appointing student election judges and additional
regular election judges needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held
November 2, 2010.
4b. Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License
Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager:
• Resolution No. 10-102 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
August 24, 2010 at Taste of India, 5617 Wayzata Blvd.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
• Resolution No. 10-103 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
August 24, 2010 at TGI Friday’s, 5875 Wayzata Blvd.
• Resolution No. 10-104 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
August 24, 2010 at Crave, 1603 West End Blvd.
• Resolution No. 10-105 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
August 26, 2010 at Trader Joe’s, 4500 Excelsior Blvd.
• Resolution No. 10-106 imposing civil penalty for liquor license violation on
August 27, 2010 at Vescio’s Cucina, 4001 State Highway 7.
4c. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2390-10 adopting fees for 2011 as
outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve summary, and
authorize publication.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-107 to recognize Police Sergeant Dan Kubes’ retirement
after 27 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4e. Approval of Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to appoint
citizen representative Gregg Lindberg as a commissioner to the Community Education
Advisory Council (CEAC) to fill the position vacated by Bob Malooly who has resigned.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to Mr. Malooly for his service on the
CEAC.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Section 8-33 Fees and the Section 8-333
Provisional License
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report and stated that the amendments are intended to
refine and improve the City’s licensing program. He advised that it is proposed to change
the current fee structure to pro rate all business license fees on a semi-annual basis such that
any new business that opens between July 1 and December 31 would pay a fee equal to one-
half the annual fee and any business opening within the last 30 days of December would be
issued a license for the following year. He explained that the intent of the provisional license
is to assist property owners if problems arise and provides a more phased approach for the
City to utilize if problems are not being resolved. He discussed the City’s Crime Free
Ordinance and how a provisional license is triggered based on one or more conditions,
including the average number of police contacts per dwelling unit in the preceding twelve
month period. He stated that City staff will then work with a property owner to establish a
mitigation plan to bring the property into compliance; the provisional license fee is twice the
total annual license fee to cover increased staff time.
Lisa Peilen, 2816 Glenhurst, appeared before the City Council on behalf of the Minnesota
Multi-Housing Association. She expressed her thanks to City staff and in particular to Mr.
Hoffman and Ms. Boettcher for their outreach to the Association. She stated that the
Association has some concern regarding how police contact is counted under the proposed
Ordinance, specifically that police contact shall be counted if it involves an incident that
occurs anywhere on the licensed premises regardless of who is involved, or near the licensed
premises if the contact involves tenants or guests of the licensed premises. She explained that
the Association’s concern stems from the fact that a property owner has no control over a
guest who leaves the building and that guest is then involved in an altercation in the next
block and there is no recourse for the property owner based on that police contact. She
indicated that it is her understanding that the City’s intent is to deal with issues that may
have started at a particular property but that may have spilled over off premise. She asked
that the City consider amending the language to connect the guest’s actions between the first
and second incidents and/or to tighten up the definition of the word “guest.”
Dan Goldman, 8800, 8812, and 8824 West 36th Street, appeared before the City Council
and reiterated the concerns expressed by Ms. Peilen.
Jim Yarosh, representing Fine Properties of Minnesota, LLP, appeared before the City
Council and stated that Mr. Fine has expressed opposition to the proposed amendments.
He stated that Mr. Fine disagrees with the City holding him responsible as a landlord for
third parties whom he has no have direct contact with; Mr. Fine had this same concern when
the Crime Free Ordinance was adopted. He indicated that Mr. Fine does not understand
the City’s rationale for using a tiered system for facilities of different sizes and Mr. Fine has
requested a meeting with staff to discuss this issue, as well as how the City is defining police
contact. He stated that Sec. 8-333(a)(4) deals with failure to maintain compliance with
property maintenance and other City Code requirements, and questioned the need for this
provision since City Code already contains remedies for dealing with property maintenance
violations; he suggested that Sec. 8-333(a)(4) be removed. He stated that there is a
typographical error in the first line of Sec. 8-333(b). He stated that Sec. 8-333(d) is vague
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
and requested that this provision be clarified, particularly with respect to the statement
regarding ongoing public safety concerns. He requested that Sec. 8-333(f) be clarified
regarding use of the terms “consistent failure.” He added that the City already has remedies
available to it, both criminal misdemeanor and citation, regarding property maintenance.
He stated that Sec. 8-333(g)(1) is similar to language contained in the Crime Free
Ordinance but requested that this provision be modified to mirror the language contained in
the Crime Free Ordinance. He also asked about the necessity for providing a Certificate of
Insurance contained in Sec. 8-333(g)(3).
Councilmember Mavity requested that staff continue to evaluate the provisions of the
ordinance, particularly those areas that appear to be more subjective, and to make certain
that the ordinance provisions regarding the number of police contacts per dwelling unit is as
quantifiable and measurable as possible.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue to address the concerns
raised this evening and to report back to the City Council at the time of the second reading.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt First
Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances to
Provide for a Provisional Rental Housing License.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. First Reading – Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated this is a continuation of the first reading.
She explained that the first motion is for consideration of the local gambling tax increase
amendment and the second motion is for consideration of a 10% Contribution Fund
requirement. She stated that if the first reading is approved, the Council can take action to
include two exemptions to the proposed ordinance to allow an exemption to the 10%
Contribution Fund requirement for those organizations who expend 100% of their lawful
purpose expenditures within the City; and for those organizations located on a premises
owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation.
Mitch Speicher, St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters gambling manager, expressed concern
regarding the increase in the local gambling tax. He stated that the increase represents an
approximate $5,000 increase in their organization’s local tax. He requested information
regarding the City’s rationale for increasing the local gambling tax.
Mr. Harmening stated that the City reviewed how much time is spent on average by City
staff in overseeing and managing the gambling activities in the City and determined that the
City spends in excess of $10,000 per year; in the past the City has collected less than $1,000
per year to manage these activities.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
Mr. Speicher asked if the City would consider charging a flat fee for administering gambling
activities.
Mr. Scott stated that he was not sure if the statute allows a City to charge a flat fee to cover
administrative costs and agreed to research this question prior to the second reading.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 15, Section 15-9 of the St. Louis Park Code
of Ordinances concerning charitable gambling regulations increasing the local gambling tax
to 1.25%, and to set second reading for October 18, 2010.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Omodt opposed).
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 15, Section 15-8 of the St. Louis Park Code
of Ordinances concerning gambling distribution of proceeds requiring organizations to
contribute to a 10% contribution fund, and to set second reading for October 18, 2010.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Omodt opposed).
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve an exemption to Section 15-8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances concerning
gambling distribution of proceeds relating to the required contribution to the 10%
Contribution Fund for organizations that expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures
within the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve an exemption to Section 15-8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances concerning
gambling distribution of proceeds relating to the required contribution to the 10%
Contribution Fund where lawful gambling activity occurs on premises owned and operated
by a nonprofit corporation.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was not in favor of this exemption and added that the
legal status of an operator has no relevance to the question of where proceeds are spent. She
indicated that it is important to remember that while gambling proceeds may provide benefit
to the community, gambling also causes some difficulties for people who gamble too often,
resulting in a burden to the community.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he appreciated Councilmember Sanger’s concerns,
but indicated that entities such as the American Legion provide a valued service to veterans
and it is important for the City to support institutions such as the American Legion.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes October 4, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that the intent of the ordinance amendment has always been
to get the money to the nonprofits in the City.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications - None
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to waive second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating
to political signs contained in the agenda materials, and approve the summary ordinance contained
in the agenda materials for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Cities are required to amend their signage regulations to comply with new State regulations for
political signs. Should the city adopt the proposed ordinance to update political sign regulations to
be consistent with state law?
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Proposed is an amendment to Section 36-362 of the zoning ordinance, to allow political signs of any
size and number to be displayed beginning 46 days prior to a primary election until 10 days after the
general election. This amendment is required to make the city’s political signage regulations
consistent with a new state law adopted in 2010.
The proposed amendment also simplifies the existing language and makes the performance standards
consistent for all state and non-state general elections.
BACKGROUND:
New State Law:
In 2010 the Minnesota State Legislature amended state statutes to provide that state and municipal
primary elections be held on the second Tuesday in August. As a result of this, the new law had to
change when political signs could be posted so they coincide with the new primary election date.
The State Statute previously stated that political signs of any size and in any number may be posted
on a property from August 1 in a general election year until 10 days following the state election.
The new law allows political signs of any size and any number to be posted on a property in a
general election year from a date 46 days prior to the state primary election until 10 days following
the state general election.
Cities are required to change their ordinance to comply with the new state law. The proposed
amendment makes the required change.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 2
First Reading by City Council:
The Council adopted the first reading of the proposed amendments on July 19, 2010. During this
meeting, the council asked the following two questions:
1. How does the new law treat cities such as St. Louis Park that may not always hold a primary
election. The proposed city ordinance allows signs to be posted 46 days prior to the primary
election, if there is one. If there is not a primary election, signs can be posted up to 46 days
before the general election.
2. Since this new law passed, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are now “people,” and
asked if this changes the property rights of “people” in terms of putting signs up or the size of
those signs. The state law allows any property owner, meaning individual or corporation, to
display political signs on their property. It does not differentiate between individuals or
corporations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Ordinance Summary for publication
Excerpt of July 19, 2010 City Council Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 3
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO.______-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-362(h)(5)
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 10-19-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-362(h)(5) is hereby amended by
deleting stricken language and adding underscored language.
Sec. 36-362. sign regulations.
***
(c) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
***
Sign, political means a temporary sign, which advertises or promotes a candidate for
public office, a political party, or an issue to be considered in a public election or any
other message not classified as a commercial message.
***
(h) Special provisions. In addition to the general provisions contained in subsection (f) of this
section, these special provisions apply to the following types of signs:
***
(5) Political signs.
a. Political signs are permitted in the front yard.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 4
b. No political sign may be placed on the public right-of-way or any publicly owned
property, including boulevard trees and utility poles.
c. No political sign shall have more than two faces. The total square footage of sign
area on one lot shall not exceed 64 square feet, except that political signs of any size
are permitted from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following
the state general election.
d. No sign shall be placed which obstructs the vision at an intersection or otherwise
constitutes a hazard to public safety.
e. Signs sponsoring candidates for public office must be removed within ten days after
an election has been held unless the candidate is one who qualifies as a candidate to
be named on the ballot at a general election after a primary election. In that case,
signs erected or placed before the primary election by or for that candidate may be
left in place until ten days after the general election. In any election which is not a
primary, all political signs shall be removed within ten days after such election.
a. Political signs of any size are permitted in any number from 46 days before a primary
election, or the general election if a primary election is not held.
b. Political signs must be removed within ten days after the general election has been
held.
c. Political signs shall not be placed on the public right-of-way or any publicly owned
property, including boulevard trees and utility poles.
d. Political signs shall not obstruct the vision at an intersection or otherwise constitute a
hazard to public safety.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 10-19-ZA are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing June 16, 2010
First Reading July 19, 2010
Second Reading October 18, 2010
Date of Publication October 28, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 5
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 6
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._________-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 36-362(h)(5)
POLITICAL SIGNS
This ordinance amends Section 36-362(h)(5) of the zoning ordinance pertaining to signs to revise
the performance standards for political signs.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council October 18, 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 28, 2010
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Political Signs Page 7
EXCERPTS OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 19, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Knetsch), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner
(Mr. Walther), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Recreation Supervisor (Mr. Rosa),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
8b. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Political Signs
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and stated this amendment is intended to comply
with the new state law by allowing political signs of any size to be posted from a date 46 days
prior to the state primary election until 10 days following the general election.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the new law as it relates to cities such as St. Louis Park
that may not always hold a primary election.
Mr. Morrison agreed to research Councilmember Sanger’s question further.
Councilmember Omodt stated that since this new law was passed, the Supreme Court has
ruled that corporations are now “people,” and asked if this changes the property rights of
“people” in terms of putting signs up or the size of those signs.
Mr. Harmening agreed to research this question as well.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt First
Reading of an ordinance amending Section 36-362(h)(5) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code Relating to Zoning.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting Date: October 18, 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 - Water and Sewer Service Line Repair at 3039 Alabama Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer
service lines at 3039 Alabama Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-21-0050.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Robert and Rebecca Thelen, owners of the single family residence at 3039 Alabama Avenue South, St.
Louis Park, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water and sewer service lines 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 and 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 and sewer service lines in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, these repairs qualify for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water and sewer
service line repairs and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $6,589.78
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 October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water & Sewer Service Line Repair at 3039 Alabama Ave So
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES AT
3039 ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P. I. D. 16-117-21-21-0050
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3039 Alabama Avenue South, St. Louis Park, have
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water and
sewer service lines for the single family residence located at 3039 Alabama 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 water and sewer service lines.
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 and sewer service line repairs is hereby accepted.
2. The water and sewer service line repairs that were done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections are
hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water and sewer service lines is accepted at $6,589.78.
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 and sewer service lines and the special assessment
of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0042.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Charles Huselid, owner of the single family residence at 2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue has requested the City
to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in
accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines
for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service line repair and special
assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $4,295.00.
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 October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 2913 Texa Tonka Ave
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
2913 TEXA-TONKA AVENUE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0042
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single
family residence located at 2913 Texa-Tonka Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $4,295.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary
to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated
therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 72-08 – Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2007-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of $121,144.30, including
Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $11,500.00, for Park Place Boulevard Improvement Project,
City Project No. 2007-1101 - Contract No. 72-08.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 5, 2007, the City Council authorized a contract with SRF Consulting Engineers to
prepare plans and specifications for reconstructing and improving Park Place Boulevard. The plans
were completed to provide for roadway improvements to accommodate projected traffic and traffic
growth relating to redevelopment in the immediate area, more specifically the West End. The
proposed roadway project provided for the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard from Gamble
Drive to I-394.
On April 28, 2008 the City Council adopted a resolution accepting the Project Report, establishing
Improvement Project No. 2007-1101, approving the plans and specifications, and authorized
advertisement for bids.
On June 2, 2008 the City Council approved a motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$4,038,465.97 for this project.
On October 6, 2008 the City Council approved Change Order No. 1 essentially extending the
project limits on Park Place Boulevard from Gamble Drive to Cedar Lake Road. The additional
work was added as a result of discussions with adjacent property owners regarding the Special Service
District, and an overall desire to extend streetscape improvements the remaining distance of the
street corridor south to Cedar Lake Road. A mill and overlay, additional lighting, and trail extension
for the remainder of Park Place Boulevard to Cedar Lake Road was therefore added to provide
further uniformity, as well as aesthetic and functional value to the entire corridor. This work
resulted in additional costs of $210,964.64.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution Contract 72-08 Valley Paving, 2007-1101
On May 4, 2009 the City Council approved Change Order No. 2 for construction related
adjustments and further lighting additions to the existing contract work. This included additional
underground work, removals and adjustments due to utility conflicts and/or other unforeseen
conditions encountered during the course of construction. In addition to construction adjustments,
it was also proposed to replace three existing street lights outside of the project limits. The existing
lights had reached the end of their life, and were replaced with the more decorative lights included as
part of the Park Place Boulevard and West End projects. This work resulted in additional costs of
$47,146.61.
On November 16, 2009 Change Order No. 3 was approved for the design and reconstruction of
private irrigation systems adjacent to the project. The widening of Park Place Boulevard, along with
the addition of a multi-use trail required additional permanent and temporary easements from
adjacent properties in order to perform the construction. As a result, existing irrigation systems in
conflict with the work needed to be re-designed and relocated accordingly. This work was also made
challenging with the presence of several private utilities in the same area. The additional amount
was negotiated by the project engineer (SRF) with the contractor and their sub-contractor. This
work resulted in an additional cost of $19,360.00.
Change Order No. 4:
The project was essentially completed last year. Since that time, various final items have been
addressed, including final restoration, resolving final quantities for payment, and other punch list
items. All work as now been completed satisfactorily.
As part of resolving final payment quantities and amounts, the Contractor experienced delays related
to private utility construction. More specifically, the installation of a new gas main by Centerpoint
Energy resulted in some production and delay costs to the Contractor. Staff, including the City
Attorney and engineering consultant negotiated an appropriate settlement in the amount
$11,500.00. This is reflected in the final documents as Change Order No. 4.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
Final Contract Cost
The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 72-08 is now determined to be:
Original Contract Price $4,038,465.97
Change Order No. 1 $210,964.64
Change Order No. 2 $47,146.61
Change Order No. 3 $19,360.00
Change Order No. 4 $11,500.00
Final Contract Cost $4,327,437.22
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Final Payment Resolution Contract 72-08 Valley Paving, 2007-1101
Funding Sources
Original initial estimates for the roadway and streetscape portions of Park Place Boulevard were
$5,000,000 and $1,500,000, respectfully. With the addition of Change Orders along with
engineering, administrative, and other costs, the projected final cost of the project falls within
original budget estimates. The cost of the improvements has been funded from Developer and EDA
funds as follows:
Development Agreement (Duke) $ 250,000
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) $ 5,000,000
HRA Levy and/or TIF $ 1,250,000
Total Funding Available $ 6,500,000
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Design and construction of the Park Place Boulevard Roadway and Streetscape Improvements
considered and accomplished the following Vision related goals:
Sidewalks and Trails and Transportation:
1. Provide improved safety and facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Provide stronger links to destinations, including gathering centers and transit facilities.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Final Payment Resolution Contract 72-08 Valley Paving, 2007-1101
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$121,144.30 FOR THE PARK PLACE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 2007-1101, CONTRACT NO. 72-08
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated June 2, 2008, Valley Paving, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the Park Place Boulevard Project as per Contract No. 72-08.
2. Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $11,500.00 is hereby approved.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to
make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Original Contract Price $4,038,465.97
Change Order No. 1 $210,964.64
Change Order No. 2 $47,146.61
Change Order No. 3 $19,360.00
Change Order No. 4 $11,500.00
Total Contract $4,327,437.22
Total Completed $4,264,882.01
Previous Payments $4,143,737.71
Balance Due $121,144.30
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Resolution amending Resolution No. 10-092 to Purchase Tax Forfeited Property, 2944 Brunswick
Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution amending Resolution No. 10-092, adopted on September 7, 2010,
approving designation of nonconservation land shown on classification list “1528 C/NC” by Board
of County Commissioners of Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City support the proposed purchase of a vacant tax forfeited home for resale to an
affordable housing developer, consistent with the City’s Strategic Direction and housing goal to
provide more affordable single family home ownership opportunities in the City?
BACKGROUND:
This proposed amendment was presented as a written report at the October 11, Study Session. On
September 7, the Council approved the purchase of the tax forfeited parcel at 2944 Brunswick. The
purpose of the purchase was to sell the vacant home to West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land
Trust – Homes Within Reach (HWR) for development of an affordable housing opportunity.
The purpose of the amended resolution is to address HWR’s request that the City consider an
adjustment to the original acquisition plan. HWR would like the City to purchase 2944 Brunswick
Ave S and then sell it to Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) instead of selling
directly to HWR. GMCH will rehab the home over the winter. HWR would then purchase the
home from GMHC in the spring and proceed with selling to a qualified low-income family. This
approach will ease HWR’s cash-flow constraints by decreasing their holding costs during the rehab
period. This change requires the City Council to adopt a resolution amending the original
resolution.
This modification will produce the same outcome as the original plan – an additional affordable
ownership opportunity. It would also better meet cash-flow needs for HWR, and allow this project
to proceed without delay. GMHC’s mission is to preserve, improve and increase affordable housing
for low and moderate income individuals and families, assist communities with housing
revitalization as well as create and carryout demonstration projects. GMHC has been active in singe
family home rehab since the early 1970s, and HWR has successfully used them as a developer on
other single family home rehabs.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10-092 to Purchase 2944 Brunswick Avenue So.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This proposed resolution does not alter the City’s financial contribution to this project. This
proposal is consistent with budgeted funds: Housing Rehab Fund (HRF) has budgeted $50,000 to
assist HWR with acquisition of two properties in 2010; and has established a $100,000 line of credit
for HWR; and an additional $20,000 of 2010 CDBG funds has been allocated for HWR.
The total cost to the City will be $45,000 less what the City receives from the County sale. The
City’s net cost is projected to be between $11,000 -$28,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Acquisition and rehab of a tax forfeited, vacant, substandard home for an affordable ownership
opportunity is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction to provide a well maintained
and diverse housing stock and the related Focus Area to work towards affordable single family home
ownership throughout the City.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10-092 to Purchase 2944 Brunswick Avenue So.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO 10-092, ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER
7, 2010, APPROVING DESIGNATION OF NONCONSERVATION
LAND SHOWN ON CLASSIFICATION LIST “1528 C/NC”
BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
2944 BRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City Council of St. Louis Park has received from the County Auditor of
Hennepin County a list of lands in said City which became the property of the State of Minnesota
for nonpayment of taxes and said list has been designated as Classification List “1528 C/NC”; and
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the
Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County as nonconservation land;
WHEREAS, as City requests acquisition of said property for redevelopment of an affordable
single family owner occupied home contingent upon sale to Greater Metropolitan Housing
Corporation, who will complete renovations and sell to West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land
Trust – Homes Within Reach Program;
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has provided a purchase cost of $87,915 which includes
$85,000 for the property, $2,550.00 for assurance fee, $25.00 for State Deed Preparation, $51.00
for recording fees and $289.00 for the State Deed Tax;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 1949, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the Board’s classification of land as nonconservation
described in said list is approved, and the City is requesting acquisition of said property:
Include Adjacent ½ of Alley Vac Lot 012, Block 020
“Park Manor Hennepin County Minn”
PID 09 117 21 33 0176
2944 Brunswick Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
and, staff is authorized to prepare and execute such documents as are necessary to sell the property to
Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation for $87,915.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item # 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Grant Application for 2005 Louisiana Ave.
South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution supporting environmental response fund (ERF) grant application to
Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City support a grant application for clean-up funds (if needed) for development of a single
family home on this vacant excess land parcel?
BACKGROUND:
A written report updating the Council on possible environmental clean-up of the 2005 Louisiana
Ave S parcel was presented at the October 11, Study Session. The City sold the 2005 Louisiana Ave
S excess vacant parcel to Shawn Smith on March 31, 2010 for $20,000. The parcel was sold “as is”
with disclosure of known soil conditions including evidence of construction debris. The bullet
points below describe the current status:
• Since March, the owner submitted all required permit applications and had begun site
excavation in May 2010.
• Upon seeing the extent of the construction debris, the owner halted the project and has spent
the summer exploring options for how to proceed.
• In September 2010, the owner requested and received County assistance to conduct Phase I
and Phase II environmental assessments to determine if the site is contaminated.
• The Phase II environmental assessment results should be known by late October.
• If the Phase II assessment reveals contaminates that meet criteria for County Environmental
Response Funds (ERF), an application could be submitted by the land owner/City by
November 1, 2010.
• The County awards Environmental Response Funds (ERF) to developers and cities to assist
with cleaning-up polluted sites. ERF applications are due annually on May 1 and November
1.
• The ERF application requires a resolution from the City supporting the request for assistance
for the land owner.
Timing is an issue. Since the Phase II environmental assessment results won’t be known until late
October, and the application is due November 1, staff is recommending that a resolution supporting
the grant application be approved contingent upon findings that necessitate ERF clean-up.
Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Grant Application for 2005 Louisiana Ave. S.
In the event the site is eligible for ERF assistance, the City would assist the owner in completing the
ERF application to be submitted on November 1. Pending a grant award, the owner would then
proceed with building the single family home in spring 2011. The County has indicated they would
be supportive of the application if clean-up is required.
In the event the site is not contaminated, the owner will bear the costs of excavation and removal of
construction debris.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no cost to the City for the ERF application and clean-up.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Construction of single family homes for families is consistent with the City’s Vision, Strategic
Directions and Housing Goals.
Attachment: City Resolution Supporting ERF Application
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Grant Application for 2005 Louisiana Ave. S.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL GRANT
APPLICIATON TO HENNEPIN COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED that pending Phase II Environmental Assessment findings requiring
pollution clean-up, the City of St. Louis Park supports the environmental financial grant application
submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services on November 1, 2010
by the City and Mr. Shawn Smith for the 2005 Louisiana Avenue South site.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: Meeting Date: Meeting Date: Meeting Date: October 18October 18October 18October 18, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010
Agenda Item #:Agenda Item #:Agenda Item #:Agenda Item #: 4 4 4 4gggg
Regular MeetingRegular MeetingRegular MeetingRegular Meeting Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing Action Item Action Item Action Item Action Item Consent Item Consent Item Consent Item Consent Item Resolution Resolution Resolution Resolution Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance
Presenta Presenta Presenta Presentationtiontiontion Other: Other: Other: Other:
EDA MeetingEDA MeetingEDA MeetingEDA Meeting Action Item Action Item Action Item Action Item Resolution Resolution Resolution Resolution Other: Other: Other: Other:
Study SessionStudy SessionStudy SessionStudy Session Discussion Item Discussion Item Discussion Item Discussion Item Written Report Written Report Written Report Written Report Other: Other: Other: Other:
TITLE:TITLE:TITLE:TITLE:
Final Payment for G L Contracting, Inc., Contract 112-08.
RRRRECOMMENDED ACTIONECOMMENDED ACTIONECOMMENDED ACTIONECOMMENDED ACTION::::
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,800.00 and accepting
completion of the earth work for the 2008 redevelopment project at Fern Hill Park with G L
Contracting, Inc., Project No. 20080070, City Contract No. 112-08.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONPOLICY CONSIDERATIONPOLICY CONSIDERATIONPOLICY CONSIDERATION::::
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:
City Council approved and authorized the reconstruction of Fern Hill Park - City Project No.
20080070 which was advertised, bid and awarded to G L Contracting, Inc. on September 8, 2008 in
the amount of $131,090.04.
The Contractor has satisfactorily completed this work in accordance to the contract.
FINANCIAL OR FINANCIAL OR FINANCIAL OR FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONBUDGET CONSIDERATIONBUDGET CONSIDERATIONBUDGET CONSIDERATION::::
The cost for this project was accounted for in the Capital Park Improvement fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:VISION CONSIDERATION:VISION CONSIDERATION:VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
AttachmentAttachmentAttachmentAttachmentssss:::: Resolution
Prepared by:Prepared by:Prepared by:Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by:Reviewed by:Reviewed by:Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by:Approved by:Approved by:Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment for G L Contracting Inc., Contract 112-08
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION NO. ________________________________________
RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAAUTHORIZING FINAL PAAUTHORIZING FINAL PAAUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THEYMENT IN THEYMENT IN THEYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $AMOUNT OF $AMOUNT OF $AMOUNT OF $3,800.003,800.003,800.003,800.00 AND ACCEPTING THE AND ACCEPTING THE AND ACCEPTING THE AND ACCEPTING THE EARTH EARTH EARTH EARTH WORK WORK WORK WORK FORFORFORFOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RECONSTRUCTION OF FERN HILL PARKFERN HILL PARKFERN HILL PARKFERN HILL PARK
WITHWITHWITHWITH G L CONTRACTING, INC.G L CONTRACTING, INC.G L CONTRACTING, INC.G L CONTRACTING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. CITY PROJECT NO. CITY PROJECT NO. CITY PROJECT NO. 20080070200800702008007020080070
CONTRACT NO. CONTRACT NO. CONTRACT NO. CONTRACT NO. 111111112222----00008888
BE IT RESOLVED BE IT RESOLVED BE IT RESOLVED BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated September 16, 2008, G L Contracting,
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the earthwork for reconstruction of Fern Hill Park, as per Contract
No. 112-08.
2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filled her recommendations for final acceptance of
the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Declaration of Hazardous Excavation – 2837 Ottawa Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution ordering the abatement of the hazardous excavation condition located at
2837 Ottawa Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Based on the condition of the property does Council concur with staff’s recommendation of
declaring a hazardous excavation and authorize the abatement process?
BACKGROUND:
• October 2, 2009 – Mr. George Murray completed an excavation in the rear yard of his
property located at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South, without a building permit. The
approximate size of the excavation is 30 feet X 35 feet X 4 feet deep. Excavation was
intended for the construction of an addition to his house.
• January 15, 2010 - Building Permit #185753 was issued to Mr. Murray for the
construction of the addition, a deck, and a front stoop.
• July 16, 2010 – Building permit expired. No work was started within 180 days from the
issuance date of the building permit and therefore, the permit became invalid as required
in Minnesota State Building Code Section 1300.0120, Subpart 11 – Expiration.
• July 23, 2010 - Mr. Murray was notified by letter that he had until August 23, 2010 to
restore the property at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South to code compliance by; 1) filling in
the open excavation; 2) re-grading the lot to insure drainage away from the foundation
walls of the house; and 3) re-establishing the turf in both the front and rear yards.
• August 18, 2010 – Staff received written notice from Mr. Murray stating that he will not
comply with July 23, 2010 violation notice.
• October 12, 2010 – Staff confirmed that the open excavation at 2837 Ottawa Avenue
South remains and determined to be a hazardous excavation.
DISCUSSION:
The excavation has been left significantly open in excess of six months without the erection of the
building and therefore staff feels this open excavation has become a Hazardous Excavation, as
specified in Minnesota State Statute 463.25-Hazardous Excavations.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.4h) Page 2
Subject: Hazardous Excavation – 2837 Ottawa Avenue South
If the City Council should undertake the action recommended by staff, the parties with a financial
interest in the property will be notified by the city attorney and provided 20 days from service of the
order to remedy the hazard. Unless corrective action is taken by the owner(s), the city will move for
summary of enforcement, request the court to authorize filling the excavation, grading and re-
establishing the turf, and the cost of enforcement will be charged against the property.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If the court approves the summary of enforcement, the city may incur costs of $4,000 - $6,000 to
hire a contractor and return the property to code compliance. All costs would be assessed against the
property.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Excavation
Order for Abatement of Hazardous Excavation
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.4h) Page 3
Subject: Hazardous Excavation – 2837 Ottawa Avenue South
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
Date ________________________________ Resolution ________________________________
Motion By ___________________________ Seconded By ______________________________
RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT
OF HAZARDOUS EXCAVATION
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of St. Louis Park has attempted without success
to have the owner of certain property remedy the hazardous condition of the unsafe open excavation
and improper drainage situated on property at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the unsafe open excavation and improper
drainage constitutes a hazardous excavation within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes § 463.25 and
constitutes a health and safety hazard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota:
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.16 et seq., the City hereby adopts and approves the
Demolition Order for Removal of Hazardous Excavation attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
2. The City of St. Louis Park finds that the condition of the property located at 2837 Ottawa
Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is a health and safety hazard and contains a
hazardous excavation within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.25.
3. The City’s legal counsel, Campbell Knutson, P.A., 317 Eagandale Office Center, 1380
Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, is directed to serve the Demolition Order
and to proceed with enforcement in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq.
ADOPTED this _______ day of _____________, 2010, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.4h) Page 4
Subject: Hazardous Excavation – 2837 Ottawa Avenue South
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Other Civil
IN RE: Court File No. ______________
The Matter of a Hazardous Building ORDER FOR A
Located at 2837 Ottawa, City of HAZARDOUS EXCAVATION
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
TO: Owners and lien holders of the above real estate: George M. Murray and Marcie
Murray, husband and wife; Scott A. Gruber and Andrea Gruber, husband and wife; Chase
Mortgage Company; Deutsche Bank Trust Company as Trustee; The Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company, National Association fka The Bank of New York Trust Company N.A., as
Successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as Trustee; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. (MERS); Sovereign Bank; US Bank NA; Federated Financial Corporation of America;
LVNV Funding LLC; Discover Bank; Midland Funding LLC.
PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the St. Louis Park City Council and by
authority of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this
Order upon you, to remedy the hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, and the hazardous
condition of the open excavation and debris situated on the property at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South,
City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
The South 67.5 feet of Lot 8, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 318,
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
The Building Officials for the City of St. Louis Park have inspected the above referenced
property. The inspections revealed that the open excavation and improper drainage and grading of
the yard, constitute a hazardous excavation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.25 and are health, safety,
and welfare hazards to the residents of the City of St. Louis Park. The hazardous excavation must be
abated immediately.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No.4h) Page 5
Subject: Hazardous Excavation – 2837 Ottawa Avenue South
If you fail to remedy the situation the City will seek permission from the District Court for
the City to do so. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.19 unless you remedy the situation within the said twenty (20) day
period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you. Upon
enforcement of the Order by the City, all costs expended by the City will be assessed against the real
property and collected as other taxes as provided in Minn. Stat. § 463.21.
Dated: ____________________, 2010 CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
By: ________________________________
Soren M. Mattick, #27785X
Assistant St. Louis Park City Attorney
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (651) 452-5000
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of St. Louis Park, by and through its undersigned attorney, acknowledges that
costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party
or parties pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, subd. 2.
Dated: ________________, 2010
__________________________________
Soren M. Mattick, #27785X
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AND STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 18, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member)
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Person
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice-Chair Morris called the meeting to order.
2. Approval of Minutes of July 21, 2010
Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the minutes of July 21, 2010. Commissioner
Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
3. Hearings
A. Major Amendment to PUD for Residential and Variance – The West End
Location: 5310 16th Street West
Applicant: The Excelsior Group
Case No.: 10-23-PUD
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Robertson asked if bicycle parking listed as one space/bedroom on the plans
was a typo and should be noted as one space/unit.
Mr. Walther responded one space/unit was correct, with a 10% increase above that.
Commissioner Carper asked if there would be some type of green roof on the proposed
building.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
Mr. Walther responded that the West End development is looked at as one large PUD.
The apartment building is consistent with the originally proposed hotel site development.
The stormwater has been mitigated through the West End development. He explained there
is a large underground system provided under the Rainbow parking lot. In the Brownie Lake
watershed, which is the subwatershed, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had a goal
of reducing phosphorus by 12 lbs/year. The Shops at West End development and the
stormwater system provided will reduce phosphorus by 48 lbs/year. Mr. Walther said that
while this project doesn’t include green roofs, there were other environmental pieces
included in the Shops at West development. He mentioned a small demonstration green roof
project near the second story offices on the west side of the Shops of West End development.
Mr. Walther added that there are some slot drains in the sidewalks along the public streets
that both capture some stormwater and help improve the life of the street trees planted in
that area.
David Bade, Duke Realty, introduced the project and said Duke is in partnership with the
Excelsior Group on The West End Apartments.
Chris Culp, Excelsior Group, provided background information on his company. He said
the expected demographic at the West End Apartments is age 27–37 and 55-65. He
described the development as luxury rental.
Commissioner Robertson stated he liked the project. He added that in a setting like this the
DORA (designed outdoor recreation area) is important and the terrace deck at the pool will
be in shade most of the time which limits its value as DORA, making the project a little bit
weak. Other than that he said it’s a very good project.
Mr. Culp responded that was a concern of his, too. He said they went through the shadow
study and deliberately put the sun deck portion as far north as possible.
Vice-Chair Morris asked if there is a desire to add residential components to the next phase.
Mr. Bade replied that is a possibility if the numbers make sense, given the current office
market.
Vice-Chair Morris opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Shapiro said he supports the development and likes the way it looks. He said
it fits in well with the overall development.
Commissioner Carper said he thinks the proposed project is very well done. He said he is
concerned about the tandem parking arrangement.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment
to the West End PUD and a Variance for The West End Apartments at 5310 16th Street
West. Commissioner Shapiro seconded the motion.
Vice-Chair Morris stated he is not in favor of the major amendment for two reasons: 1) it
doesn’t bring forward any of the city’s housing goals; it’s not affordable housing; and 2) he
doesn’t like an apartment complex in the midst of a retail commercial business; it doesn’t feel
residential. He said if the rest of the development were to come around with residential it
would have a better fit. It’s not near trails or parks and has no outdoor amenities for
residents. He doesn’t feel that it furthers the city’s housing goals. He added it does fit all of
the criteria but it took a zoning code change to make it fit, and some variances. His personal
opinion is that it is not a good fit for the entire development.
Commissioner Robertson said that he understood Vice-Chair Morris’ comments but as far as
the housing goals going back to the Housing Summit of a few years ago, the major housing
goal was for larger single family homes. A major part of that housing study was that the city
has a very good mix of affordable housing. But the City doesn’t have a housing goal of
creating more affordable housing. Commissioner Robertson said as the city creates more
housing it wants to create the right percentage along with it that is affordable, but it really
doesn’t have a lack of affordable housing. He said he disagrees with part of Vice-Chair
Morris’ premise on that.
The motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the West End PUD and a
Variance for The West End Apartments at 5310 16th Street West passed on a vote of 5-1
(Morris opposed).
4. Other Business
Commissioner Robertson spoke about the City Council’s resolution requesting Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority to Re-Analyze the Potential Routes in the 2009 TCWR
Freight Rail Realignment Study in Greater Detail. He said a Project Management Team
has convened which does not include representation from the Planning Commission. He
said there has been interest in including Planning Commission representation and he was
hoping to forward a resolution along those lines but wanted to get a little discussion from
commissioners first whether they are in agreement.
Vice-Chair Morris asked if all commissioners had seen the hand-out distributed to them.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson’s comments. He said
the Planning Commission’s role is to advise the Council on such matters and the
Commission should have representation on the Project Management Team.
Commissioner Carper said he was serving as his neighborhood representative on the team,
but certainly looked through the eyes of a commissioner as well.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
Commissioner Morris said he supported the proposed Planning Commission resolution.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she also felt it was proper for the Planning
Commission to be included on the Project Management Team.
Commissioner Kramer made a motion to support a resolution that a representative of the
Planning Commission has a separate seat on the PMT committee and hereby asks the City
of St. Louis Park and HCRRA to add a commissioner on the roster.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Carper stated that the next PMT meeting is scheduled for August 26th.
Vice-Chair Morris asked if the meetings were public.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, responded that the meetings are public.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked who makes the decision about representation.
Ms. McMonigal said no formal appointments were made to the committee. Consultants,
the County, the City, and MnDOT have worked together to get neighborhood involvement.
There is not a specific group that appointed members to the team. Ms. McMonigal said she
would forward the resolution to the City Manager, the County, and the other groups
working on and funding the study.
Vice-Chair Morris clarified that the resolution was asking for a voice and participation on
the board, not just the ability to attend.
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. A study session followed.
STUDY SESSION
1. Fire Stations Update
Senior Planner Sean Walther gave a brief presentation on the status of planning and
designing the two new fire stations. He showed the current site design and building
elevations, and discussed the goals for the sites. Sean explained the next neighborhood
meeting would be on September 16th. He mentioned that the question of Oxford Street
changing from a one-way to a two-way street has arisen, and the staff has been directed to
work with the neighbors on this proposal.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
2. Joint Meeting with the City Council
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal said the date for a joint meeting is
September 27th, and it will be held at the remodeled and expanded Municipal Service Center
(MSC). Jim McComb of the McComb Group will be presenting the results of the
Commercial Corridor Study, which looked at the market situation of 10 commercial nodes
and corridors identified in the Comprehensive Plan. McMonigal also noted that another
item would be to discuss the ideas for the proposed “Business Park” zoning district. Lastly,
she noted the zoning items the Planning Commissioners had discussed. She handed out a
list of zoning amendments that had been undertaken and passed in the past 6 years
(attached). A discussion of the zoning issues ensued and Commissioners indicated they
would like to discuss zoning further with the City Council.
The study session adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting
August 18, 2010
Zoning amendments since 2005:
Year Amendment
2005 Change “religious institutions” to “places of assembly”
Revise cluster housing in single family districts
2006 Creation of a Park and Open Space zone
Sign revisions
Revision to “Non conforming” section
Residential home and garage setbacks
Building materials
2007 Revision of Landscape requirements
Pawn shop ordinance
Parking regulations
Signs
2008 Institutional uses in residential districts to be CUPs
Communication tower revisions
2010 Wind
Electronic signs
Political signs
Zoning issues to discuss:
• restaurant versus coffee shop
• setbacks for single family homes
• mixed use definition
• cluster housing
• transit reduction in parking
• PUD
• others?
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4j
City of St. Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Minutes – September 1, 2010
Aquila Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:04.
Commissioners Present: Cindy Hoffman, Ken Huiras, Jim Smith, Alexa Trussoni and Hans
Widmer
Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
Guest: Maria Mulvihill, Cornerstone
II. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve the July 14, 2010 minutes was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by
Commissioner Hoffman. The minutes were approved.
III. HRC Update
Lt. Harcey spoke with Marney Olson and Lt. Dreier about a joint project for PAC and HRC. They
discussed doing something similar to the Citizens Academy, but for immigrant populations. It
would allow for Police and community interaction and instruct residents on what to do if stopped
by an officer and other issues. The Committee can discuss it further in November.
IV. 2010 Golf Tournament (Current Status, Additional sponsors and donations, Help at
tournament on Friday Morning)
Commissioner Smith reported that the tournament was a week from Friday and everything was
coming together. Hole sponsors and donations have come from many local businesses. 30 golfers are
signed up. They were fortunate to have even better donations than the previous year.
Commissioner Trussoni volunteered to pick up coffee and bagels the morning of the tournament.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes September 1, 2010
V. PSA Video Project Update
Lt. Harcey noted that Mr. Dunlap filmed a PSA with Donny Lewis and rode with him. It is now in
production. Traffic stops is the next PSA and they have the outline done. He asked Commissioners
to think of new ideas (Cornerstone was suggested).
VI. Connection with Cornerstone on Domestic Violence
Maria Mulvihill discussed Cornerstone and thought they could brainstorm on ways for the City to
become involved. They currently have a support group for St. Louis Park residents at Methodist
Hospital.
Chair Widmer suggested considering a different location because of parking concerns at the hospital.
Ms. Mulvihill stated Cornerstone provides a whole range of services from housing, support groups
and children’s issues. She works on the criminal/court and legal aspect.
Commissioner Hoffman noted she was working on putting together a PowerPoint presentation
outlining what Cornerstone does.
Commissioners suggested the following: Providing information to the public on the City web site
and how they work with the Police Department and include contact information and a 24 hour
crisis number (Commissioner Trussoni volunteered to contact city staff to have this done); Consider
doing a public service announcement regarding domestic violence or an interview from Cornerstone
staff; put flyers out and information in women’s restrooms, libraries, public places that are available
when people are separated from their abuser; link emergency number, shelter and planning; research
what other cities are doing (Ms. Mulvihill would look into this, Cornerstone works with five other
cities); information for immigrant populations including how to inform and get the Police involved
and translation information.
VII. Old/New Business
Chair Widmer stated they were looking for ideas for trail crossing signage. Lt. Harcey indicated the
Federal regulations for signage doesn’t require anything.
Commissioner Huiras asked for information about the dog ordinance and barking. Lt. Harcey
described how it worked and would check into the complaint.
Commissioner Huiras noted on September 12th there is the annual softball game between the Police
and Fire Departments at 1:00. On September 24th the senior program is holding a Belgian Waffle
Dinner at 4:30.
VIII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM.
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4k
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Meeting
August 18, 2010
6 p.m. – Meeting
7:15 p.m. – Park Tour
MEMBERS PRESENT: Christina Barberot, George Foulkes, George Hagemann, Steve
Hallfin, and Kirk Hawkinson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Flumerfelt and Tom Worthington
STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Walsh, Rick Beane, Rick Birno and Stacy Voelker
1. Call to Order
George Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
2. Presentation: None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. April 21, 2010
Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion to approve the April 21, 2010 minutes. The
motion passed 5- 0.
4. New Business
a. Proposed Changes to Splash Pad Policy
Rick Birno indicated many complaints were received due to crowding at the Oak
Hill Park Splash Pad. Sue Santa, Ward Council, has also received complaints on the
crowds indicated Ms. Walsh. Upon review, it was noted kids were being bused in
from other cities to utilize the Splash Pad. This concerned staff as St. Louis Park
residents may not be able to enjoy this amenity due to the crowds. Staff, users and
neighborhood presidents met to discuss how to alleviate the over crowding. Policies
will be created to ensure residents are able to utilize this facility.
Mr. Birno indicated the following changes were suggested:
• Residents can continue to use the splash pad free of charge; non-residents will be
charged $1 per person.
• A seasonal staff person will be on site to monitor and collect fees.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
• Groups must reserve times/dates.
• There will be a limit on groups and the number of people per day.
• There will be specific days where groups are not admitted.
• Children 10 and under will not be allowed without an adult (age to be
determined).
Members and staff discussed the following items: limiting the number of times a
group is able to visit; group versus resident usage times; and families with different
aged children should be allowed into the area even if one of their children is over the
age limit specified. Members suggested researching what policies Highland Park (or
other cities with Splash Pads) enforces and obtaining a list of licensed daycare
facilities in Hennepin County to distribute flyers regarding new policies in place in
2011.
Members were advised by Mr. Birno that further discussion will ensue and policies
will be established. Positive comments were retained from Commission members.
b. Community Recreation Planning Process
The Community Recreation Planning Process will be discussed with the City
Council on Monday, August 23 advised Ms. Walsh. Staff is proposing a survey to
acquire feedback from everyone in the community as a follow up to the Vision
process. This will include online surveys, paper surveys plus focus groups to ensure all
types of feedback are received.
Council indicated they are interested in pursuing and receiving feedback on what
residents want in the community. The Council advised Ms. Walsh they would like
the Commission involved and will keep members abreast of this item.
c. MRPA Award
Ms. Walsh indicated the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association presented the
city on August 16 with an Award of Excellence for the Beehive relocation project.
The beehive is one of only two in the country with the other original located in the
City of Robbinsdale. Staff and members agreed it’s great to be involved in history.
d. Staff Appreciation Luncheon Planning
Members and staff discussed potential dates for the annual Staff Appreciation
Luncheon hosted by the Commission. The luncheon will be held on Friday, October
1, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Oak Hill Park’s main shelter. Members
discussed items and decided to remain the same as in 2009.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
5. Old Business
a. Artificial Turf Update
Staff is currently discussing financing items with the School District, advised Ms.
Walsh. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if associations have been surveyed on their potential
use and if they would use more of enclosed; Ms. Walsh advised staff is in the
beginning stages of discussing.
b. Jorvig Park Train Car Donation
The train car Mr. Birno and Mr. Beane visited in Cottage Grove is in good
condition. Mr. Birno contacted the Historical Society and inquired if they are
interested in building and securing a site for the units. City staff would consider
moving the train car to the park. Staff awaits a decision from the Historical Society.
c. Plastic Bottles in Park Facilities
As a follow up to previous discussions, Ms. Walsh advised the city has a five year
contract with Coca Cola with the potential for a five year roll-over. Staff indicated
the contract will be renegotiated to include cans (in what’s available) versus plastic
bottles when the contract is complete. Mr. Hagemann recommended obtaining what
is available in cans and moving toward weaning out plastics as other varieties become
available. Mr. Birno is working with the vendor to replace the current vending
machines with Energy Star machines to save money and energy.
Members inquired if staff could discuss the potential of incorporating canned
products with Coca-Cola now even with the contract. It was noted that other
communities are switching to canned products and are struggling with obtaining
water in a can.
6. Communications
a. Chair
Mr. Hagemann met with the City Council approximately a month ago to provide an
update from 2009 and the Commissions goals for 2010. Discussions were good and
some items were clarified. Mr. Hagemann commented the Council members
balanced discussions well.
Mr. Hagemann provided members with numerous items Council members brought
up and discussed. Among the items discussed, the Commission advised what their
future plans are for the Minnehaha Creek clean up. Council questioned recycling of
the park equipment which staff is researching. The Council discussed what adult
activities are offered and the Belt Line Boulevard crossing. Three Rivers Park District
is reviewing bike trail signage and rule consistency across the district.
Council mentioned a joint bike ride next year. Members will discuss in January.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
b. Commissioners
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on Lisa Abernathy’s duties and on joint programming of
Minnehaha Canoe rental. Mr. Birno and Mr. Beane provided information on duties
and advised the canoe program went well and there were rentals this year.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if Zebra Mussels have found their way into city waterways.
Staff and members discussed the mussels and also the waders that were used for the
Minnehaha Creek clean up were not the felt ones, which attract mussels.
Ms. Barberot advised she is participating in the Elliot School discussion panel and
attended the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District tour. The Twins Stadium is
completely watered with recycled water, Ms. Barberot indicated, and suggested gray
water be used to water parks along with rain barrels by the community gardens and
fields. Ms. Barberot suggested there are resources available to assist in the funding of
rain barrel purchases. Rain water usage has been discussed in the Fire Department
redevelopment projects, advised Ms. Walsh, as staff would like to use for community
gardens and ball fields. Staff and members discussed water storage and how to
acquire (as cannot obtain from holding ponds). Staff noted non-irrigated fields do
not get watered. Staff will investigate for Northside Park.
Members inquired on the algae in Wolfe Lake pond. Residents have commented on
the algae in holding ponds and, Ms. Walsh indicated, the ponds do what they are
made to do. Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, will provide more
information at a future meeting.
A member had Council inquire about unknown creek access locations. Mr. Beane
advised the access points are signed and now noted on the city’s Bike and Trail map.
Ms. Barberot suggested including in the Parks and Recreation brochure as a “did you
know” paragraph and on the web.
Mr. Hallfin inquired on the plan for the Northside Park baseball field. Ms. Walsh
advised three fields will be included in the park. General schematics have been
drafted and demolition will occur this fall advised Mr. Beane. The park will be
renovated next summer but is scheduled to be completed by 2012 and available for
play. Mr. Hallfin indicated it was a great summer and thanked staff for their hard
work on the wonderful facilities.
Mr. Foulkes commented that Parktacular was nice but concerned about the
attendance and inquired if any feedback was received. Staff has not met with
Parktacular yet for their annual wrap up meeting but Nate Rosa, Parktacular liaison,
will receive feedback soon. Mr. Birno indicated revenue at the street dance did not
drop per Phil Weber’s comments.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4k) Page 5
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 18, 2010
c. Friends of the Arts Update
Mr. Hagemann indicated the Friends of the Arts is scheduled to provide Council
with an update on Monday, August 21. The Our Town project was completed.
Sunday on Channel 2 there is an interview with FoTA on how art in a community
builds the community. St. Louis Park is one of three communities in the stated
selected to provide an interview.
The City-School calendar was printed and distributed, Mr. Hagemann indicated.
The calendar includes 12 top favorite poems from Versus and Voices.
d. Program Report
Mr. Birno advised of the final Saturday night concert on August 21. December 17 is
the tentative date for the Birchwood Park shelter grand opening and ice skating.
Artist Stacia Goodman will unveil a mural to be placed in the entrance of The Rec
Center on September 25. The mural is part of the Arts and Culture grant.
The summer programs were great, advised Mr. Birno, and staff is in the process of
finalizing winter programs including more non-school day activities.
e. Director Report
Ms. Walsh advised members The Rec Center staff began utilizing moss the beginning
of August, which is obtained from a local company, as a natural filtration system in
the aquatic park. The moss is Sphagnum Moss which is imported from New Zealand
even though the moss also grows in Northern Minnesota water.
The water quality is great as it is crystal clear versus mildly cloudy. Although it is too
soon for statistics on the savings, it is noted fewer chemicals are being used.
Communications crew visited the aquatic park this week and will provide basic
information to the public. The filtration system is successful from an environmental
aspect and provides constant filtration in the pool. This filtration system is being
utilized at the Oak Hill Splash pad as well and staff is testing the ice arena cooler
tower to see if it can be used in the ice arenas. Craig Panning will be invited to a
future meeting to provide more information.
7. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin to adjourn at 7:32 p.m. The motion passed 5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4l
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 1, 2010 through October 15,
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
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
107.28STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
107.28
1,270.42GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
3,072.05SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER
4,342.47
20,586.59MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM INC
20,586.59
250.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE
250.00
87.17SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIESALL STAR SPORTS
97.50T-BALL/BASEBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES
184.67
1,603.13VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSALLDATA
1,603.13
2,577.50H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
2,577.50
1,297.57SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
1,297.57
30,731.95OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC
1,913.08OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
32,645.03
986.15PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
8,273.05SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,259.20
166.21GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
173.51PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
133.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.09ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.62VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
32.01WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
32.01SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5.34STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
698.87
1,073,073.68CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMES CONSTRUCTION
1,073,073.68
23.23-IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,241.15SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,217.92
1,374.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
665.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
402.50COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
192.50E-911 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,634.00
3,635.62FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
3,635.62
1,495.19WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATANDERSON, SCOTT
1,495.19
1,193.102008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSARCA MINNESOTA INC
1,193.10
1,400.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTE
1,400.00
2,364.53WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
2,364.53SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,364.53STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,093.59
78.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
78.00
9,147.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBARR ENGINEERING CO
9,147.50
55.52NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARTL, VALERIE
55.52
190.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 3
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
190.15
3,136.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY
3,136.40
110.81PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
110.81
167.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBERTHIAUME, BRUCE
167.00
227.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
227.00
5,443.36WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
5,443.36
176.22POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
621.23OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
797.45
2,032.16PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
2,032.16
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUENDING, CANDIS
362.50
121.84TREE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
121.84
9,775.26ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
1,270.27RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,365.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
12,410.53
1,012.01IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,012.01
9,955.88TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
9,955.88
1,736.26DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 4
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,840.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
31,250.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34,826.26
30.19GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
18.90SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
49.09
38.20INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALCHRISTIAN, KEVIN
38.20
21.37GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
41.13WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
62.50
16.82-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
41.07HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
99.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
38.37HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
265.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
261.46PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.79PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
7.17-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
32.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.08VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
119.97BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
8.23-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
82.55CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.95CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
98.70CABLE TV G & A MEETING EXPENSE
85.66TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
7.39OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.63SENIOR VIDEO CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.31-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
98.05WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
277.85MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,642.66
2,600.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCLASSIC GLASS & MIRROR
2,600.00
15,234.72ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 5
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
15,234.72
218.30EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
218.30
13,312.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMERCIAL PLUMBING & HEATING
13,312.00
1,578.75PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
9,599.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11,177.75
200.58BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
200.58
530.04BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCUMMINS NPOWER LLC
1,379.10BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,909.14
490.01SSD 1 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALSCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
3,060.90SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,086.20SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
488.99SSD 3 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,342.36SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
393.30SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,861.76
7,072.73WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
7,072.73
14.48VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESDELEGARD TOOL CO
14.48
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
510.00
231.10ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
231.10
36,192.80CABLE TV G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTDIGITAL PICTURES INC
36,192.80
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 6
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
464.58AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
12,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,464.58
23,387.62SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
23,387.62
80.67REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDOSAL, FRANK
80.67
111.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
111.00
2,789.12PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEGAN OIL CO
2,789.12
857.50SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELLEFSON, MARK
857.50
2,501.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
2,501.28
34,157.97SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,157.97
86.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
86.93
123.94NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFARMERS MARKET ANNEX
123.94
106.39ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
313.48INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
75.31PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.04GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
532.22
10.43POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
10.43
381.62ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
381.62
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 7
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
133.41VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEFIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLING
133.41
800.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFOREMOST FLOORING
800.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFOULKES, SARAH
200.00
62.71NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRAHM, LAURA
62.71
2,500.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGOODMAN, STACIA
2,500.00
135.91GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
21.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.25VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.59STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
274.64
399.25GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
164.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,063.25
523.70WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
523.70
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
1,431.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYH & L MESABI
1,431.91
8,406.81TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTHANSEN INFORMATION TECH
8,406.81
5,164.25WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
5,164.25
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 8
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
938.79PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
938.79
133.00FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHEINTZ, STEVEN
133.00
175.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
175.00
318.92PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
318.92
4,273.48MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESHENRICKSEN PSG
4,273.48
5,407.56TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO
5,407.56
100.00ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKSHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
290.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
4,295.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,685.00
23.59POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHOIGAARDS
23.59
2.39ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
58.59DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17.63PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
296.28BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
224.53PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
896.84MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,496.26
96.12GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
76.89ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.37SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.09STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
28.84STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
338.39
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 9
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
125.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
175.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00
213.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
102.91VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
316.62
77.19REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHURD, JUDITH
77.19
229.99PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
229.99
45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIATN
45.00
350.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSICE SKATING INST AMERICA
350.00
247.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIDEAL SERVICE INC
247.50
1,900.43IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
13,534.30TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
15,434.73
58.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
58.25
742.79TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
742.79
1,380.08GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEINVER GROVE FORD
1,380.08
191.57ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTJ & F REDDY RENTS
191.57
15.75INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLSJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
15.75
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 10
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
378.65IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
378.65
375.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
375.00
2,511.56PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
2,511.56
1,320.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC
13,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14,320.00
276.92EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
276.92
2,921.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
2,921.00
88.14BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
593.59BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
681.73
69.08SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
57.37VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
126.45
777.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAMPERT YARDS INC
777.50
402.30RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
402.30
168.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLAUMANN, JOHN
168.00
339.70VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
339.70
6,852.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
6,852.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 11
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
96.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
23.05POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
119.05
118.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
118.94
45,729.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
1,199.25SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
46,928.25
79.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLOMBARDI, JIM
79.00
338.74PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
338.74
150.19SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
150.19
296.65PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
12.10HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
90.87SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
106.38SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
249.87MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
755.87
684.85POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
684.85
732.00POLICE G & A TRAININGMHSRC/RANGE
732.00
3,350.01SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
562.78PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
68,200.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,552.12WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
384.09STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
74,049.00
1,660.32WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 12
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,660.32
139.98EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
139.98
1,196.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,196.96
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
375.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAININGMNA
375.00
558.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
558.40
235.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
235.33
250.49PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMYERS TIRE SUPPLY CO
32.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
283.45
318.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
407.76VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
725.81
2,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNORTH STAR ART GLASS INC
2,500.00
940.50BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSNORTHERN PERENNIALS INC
940.50
11.01-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSNORTHERN SAFETY CO INC.
171.17VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
160.16
216.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
638.71GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
854.84
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 13
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
194.80TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
194.80
46.46HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
50.62SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
91.34ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
75.39FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
255.03POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
37.97POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5.49PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
224.70COP SHOP OFFICE SUPPLIES
301.34OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
98.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
277.98PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,464.82
32.55PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
179.10ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
122.88VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
334.53
2,444.92PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
106.88WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.62NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,786.92
437.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
437.50
40.00POLICE G & A LICENSESPETTY CASH
9.59SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
49.59
160.31PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
160.31
361.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
361.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 14
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
481.19WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
481.19SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
481.18SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
481.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,924.74
59.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
59.02
1,006.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,006.10
108.00ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
108.00
255.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPUBLIC TREASURY INSTITUTE
255.00
88.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
88.81
29,183.29PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUIRING EXCAVATING LLC
29,183.29
1,313.96TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCERAINBOW TREECARE
1,313.96
2,884.98FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
974.13REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
94.97WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
888.06SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,842.14
72.95WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
72.94SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
72.94SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
72.94STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
291.77
900.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAININGRICE LEADERSHIP CONSULTING, ML
900.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 15
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
173.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERICOH CORP
173.00
868.61PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRMS RENTALS
868.61
225.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROY, JEFF
225.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC
225.00
178.48ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSESAM'S CLUB
112.00HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.87NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
308.35
128.83HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONSCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ
128.83
50.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSCHARBER & SONS INC
50.40
1,991.04PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
1,991.04
1,469.53TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS INC.
1,469.53
1,387.39PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
1,387.39
10,961.65PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
10,961.65
534.37PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSPORTS TECHNOLOGY INC
534.37
600.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICESQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE
600.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 16
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
587.03ESCROWSGENERALSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
652.31GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,657.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,896.34
400.00CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK FOOTBALL ASSOCIA
400.00
103.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY
103.00
902.44BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSTATE SUPPLY CO
902.44
35,000.00GENERAL INFORMATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEP
35,000.00
388.86SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESTRAND MFG CO
388.86
29.99ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
470.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
7.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
508.41
85.80ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
85.80
1,400.00GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSUNDE LAND SURVEYING LLC
1,400.00
2,326.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC
2,326.00
1,827.03PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESSYLVA CORPORATION INC
1,827.03
1,793.12IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
1,793.12
188.68GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
188.68
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 17
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12.42GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTERMINIX INT
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
109.42
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
1,883.30EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,809.40
702.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
702.85
21.00SOFTBALLPROGRAM REVENUETITZE, HEIDI
21.00
235.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOMAR ELECTRONICS
235.13
990.74PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTSTRI STATE BOBCAT
82.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
1,072.91
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 18
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
177.01GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
177.01
97.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
97.10
46.57OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
46.57
59.78POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
859.50SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,197.34PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
265.69SCHOOL LIASON OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
251.69COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,634.00
211.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
211.00
230.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
230.00
450.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
450.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
109.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,009.00
110.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
110.00
1,813.67TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
1,813.67
82.50POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUS IDENTIFICATION MANUAL
82.50
31.11WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.11
207.90HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
207.90
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 19
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,199.94WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
5,199.94
95.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
95.00
73.36COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.36
1,539.25GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWALSER NISSAN
1,539.25
57,177.81SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
23,873.85SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
31,041.27SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
8,116.42SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
120,209.35
335.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
335.00
7,800.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
7,800.00
321.22CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
321.22
6,988.92SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
6,988.92
167.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARWHITE, PERRY
167.00
26.82MUNICIPAL BLDG RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
26.82
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOJCIAK, JAMES
112.50
280.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFRAM, KATJANA HELEN
280.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 20
10/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:21:31R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
10/15/2010 -10/1/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
374.06WESTWOOD G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
374.06
453.24WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
16,873.87ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
32.37GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12.78OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
134.38OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
17,506.64
1,500.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTYESS!
1,500.00
1,928.88PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESYOUNGBLOOD LUMBER CO
1,928.88
141.38ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
198.69PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
109.96BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
99.34WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
99.34SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
648.71
Report Totals 1,950,018.43
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 21
Meeting Date: October 18, 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 - On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license - Applebee’s
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday
sales to Apple Minnesota, LLC, dba Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar located at 8332 Highway
7 within Knollwood Mall in St. Louis Park for the license term through March 1, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday Sales to the
new ownership of the Applebee’s restaurant for the license term through March 1, 2011?
BACKGROUND:
The City received an application from Apple Minnesota, LLC for an intoxicating liquor license with
Sunday sales for the Applebee’s restaurant currently under operation at 8332 Highway 7. Apple
Minnesota LLC has recently purchased all of the Applebee’s restaurants in Minnesota. The on-site
manager, employees, menu and hours of operation will remain the same. The four new officers are:
Gregory Flynn, Lorin Cortina, Daniel Krebsbach and Ronald Igarashi.
As required in Section 3-66 of the City Code of Ordinance, a public hearing is required for the
issuance of a license for a different licensee at the same premises.
The Police Department conducted a background investigation and has found no reason to deny the
new ownership based on the investigation. The application and Police report are on file in the City
Clerk’s Office should Councilmembers wish to review the information prior to the Public Hearing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The investigation fee for a new liquor licenses is $500.00. The fee for on-sale intoxicating liquor
licenses with Sunday sales is $8,200 (prorated).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 18, 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:
Second Reading - Gambling Ordinance Amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amendments to Chapter 15, Section 15-8 requiring
organizations to contribute to a 10% Contribution Fund with exemptions for those organizations
who expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park and for
those organizations where lawful gambling activity occurs on premises owned and operated by a
nonprofit corporation, and Section 15-9 increasing the local gambling tax to 1.25%, and to approve
summary publication.
• Or, alternatively and in lieu of a 1.25% gambling tax, approve attached alternate ordinance
requiring a flat fee amount of $3,000 per location or three percent (3%) of gross profits,
whichever is less.
POLICY CONSIDERATION
Does the Council wish to approve the second reading of the gambling ordinance amendments to
Chapter 15 Sections 15-9 and 15-8 with the 1.25% local tax or with the flat fee amount option?
BACKGROUND:
On October 4, 2010, first reading was approved of gambling ordinance amendments to Chapter 15.
The two ordinances include amendments to Section 15-9 regarding local gambling tax and Section
15-8 regarding a 10% Contribution Fund with additional approved exemptions.
At the October 4 meeting Council requested further information on whether there could be a flat fee
for gambling organizations as an alternative to a local tax percentage amount. MN Statute allows
cities the authority to impose a fee or tax to be used for regulation of lawful gambling as follows:
City Authority: Fee or Tax
• FEE - Cities may charge an annual investigation fee of $250 (MN Stat 349.16, Subd. 8)
• TAX – Cities may impose a local gambling tax up to 3% (MN Stat 349.213, Subd. 8)
The current St. Louis Park gambling ordinance imposes a local gambling tax which currently is not
adequate to cover the costs to regulate gambling. The investigation fee limited amount of $250
would not be enough to cover costs necessary to regulate gambling in St. Louis Park.
The local gambling tax is calculated on the gross profits (gross receipts less prizes paid out).
Allowable expenses that can be covered by a local gambling tax include the following:
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
• Salary and benefits of city staff (administrative services, finance, and police department) for
hours spent performing duties relating to the regulation of lawful gambling.
• Professional services for legal advice on gambling issues.
• Gambling training, conferences, and reference materials.
• Other reasonable overhead expenses.
Staff has completed an analysis to estimate staff time typically spent over the course of a year on
gambling and the total expense incurred by the City. Normal duties performed by city staff relating
to regulation of gambling are as follows:
• Review of application materials.
• Make random compliance visits to each licensed gambling establishment.
• Provide information to educate the organizations and establishments on city requirements and to
assist them with gambling questions.
• Communication with the State Gambling Control Board on compliance questions and reporting
requirements.
• Obtain legal advice when necessary.
• Review the required monthly reports filed by each organization.
• Prepare the annual report for the Gambling Control Board.
At present, the City is collecting a local tax of one tenth of 1%. For the first six months of 2010,
this equates to only $467.00. Based on past experience and staff’s analysis, the city can justify
annual costs of approximately $10,000 for the activities indicated above. Therefore, staff
recommends to council that the local gambling tax rate be increased to 1.25% based on gambling
revenues reported in 2009 by the organizations.
Alternate Gambling Tax Based on Set Amount (Flat Fee) – City Attorney Opinion
Council asked staff to explore whether the City could impose a gambling tax based upon a set
amount per location as opposed to a percentage of gross profits. It is the City Attorney’s opinion
that this can be done so long as no organization pays more than three percent of its gross profits. If
the Council elects this option, a tax of $3,000 per location would be necessary to generate annual
revenue of approximately $10,000. Two of the five locations, e.g. McCoys and Texa Tonka Lanes
would be limited by the three percent cap and pay considerably less than $3,000. With this option,
Section 15-9 would read as follows and is included in the attached alternate ordinance:
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a prorated
monthly basis a local gambling tax in the annual amount of $3,000 per premises or three
percent of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less prizes
actually paid out by the organization, whichever is less. Payment shall be made no later than
25 days after the end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the
monthly return filed with the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
10% Contribution Fund
Cities who establish a 10% Contribution Fund must file a report each year on or before March 15th
with the State Gambling Control Board to report the amount received and a detail listing of how the
funds were disbursed. A reasonable fund balance can be carried forward to the following year. All
disbursements from the 10% Contribution Fund must meet the criteria regulated by State Law.
Lawful Purpose Expenditures
The city does not have authority on what specific lawful purpose expenditures must be made. This
is governed by state law and the authority rests with the organization and its membership. Lawful
purpose expenditure amounts include all taxes, fees, and charitable lawful purposes contributions.
Expenditures are determined from net profit after all prizes and allowable expenses including payroll,
rent, advertising, product, and office supplies are accounted for.
Gambling Reporting
Gambling organizations in St. Louis Park submit a monthly reporting form showing distributions of
proceeds and local tax due. Organizations are allowed to accumulate funds and are not required to
distribute proceeds on a monthly basis. Because many months there are no distributions made, staff
is proposing the 10% contribution be reported and submitted annually by January 31 of the
following year. Staff would present to council in March of each year the amount available for
allowable allocations from the proposed 10% contribution fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from Finance Department indicate approximate revenue of $10,000 to cover the city’s
costs to regulate gambling from the proposed 1.25% local gambling tax increase. The proposed
10% contribution fund requirement with both exemptions is expected to generate less than $2,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance (with local tax fee of 1.25%)
Alternate Ordinance (with a flat fee tax amount of $3,000)
Comparison of Fee Options
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Darla Monson, Finance Accountant
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
ORDINANCE NO. ____-10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO GAMBLING
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 15-8 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
(a) Each organization licensed to conduct gambling within the city shall contribute to a fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from each individual site at which lawful gambling is conducted within the city. For
purposes of this section, net profits are profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses.
Organizations that either expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose expenditures within the city of
St. Louis Park or conduct the lawful gambling activity on a premises owned and operated by a
nonprofit corporation are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution to the city.
(b) Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90 percent of its
lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area. The
contribution required in subsection (a) above shall be considered as part of the 90 percent
expenditure. This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from
lawful gambling conducted on a premises within the city. At the end of each organization's fiscal
year, each organization must file with the city a report prepared by an independent certified public
accountant documenting compliance with the requirements of this section. In addition, each
organization must submit monthly to the city a completed Schedule C/D-LG1010.
SECTION 2. Section 15-9 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis a
local gambling tax in the amount of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) 0.0125 percent (one
and one quarter percent) of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less
prizes actually paid out by the organization. Payment shall be made no later than 25 days after the
end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the
Minnesota Department of Revenue.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect January 1, 2011.
Public Hearing First Reading September 7, 2010
First Reading continued October 4, 2010
Second Reading October 18, 2010
Summary Ordinance Published October 28, 2010
Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2011
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
ALTERNATE ORDINANCE WITH FLAT FEE OPTION :
ORDINANCE NO. _______-10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO GAMBLING
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 15-8 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-8. Distribution of Proceeds
(a) Each organization licensed to conduct gambling within the city shall contribute to a fund
administered and regulated by the City, for distribution by the city for lawful purposes authorized
under Minnesota Statute an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the organization's net profits
derived from each individual site at which lawful gambling is conducted within the city. For
purposes of this section, net profits are profits less amounts expended for allowable expenses.
Organizations that either expend 100 percent of their lawful purpose expenditures within the city of
St. Louis Park or conduct the lawful gambling activity on a premises owned and operated by a
nonprofit corporation are exempt from making the 10 percent contribution to the city.
(b) Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90 percent of its
lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area. The
contribution required in subsection (a) above shall be considered as part of the 90 percent
expenditure. This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from
lawful gambling conducted on a premises within the city. At the end of each organization's fiscal
year, each organization must file with the city a report prepared by an independent certified public
accountant documenting compliance with the requirements of this section. In addition, each
organization must submit monthly to the city a completed Schedule C/D-LG1010.
SECTION 2. Section 15-9 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a prorated
monthly basis a local gambling tax in the annual amount of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of
one percent) $3,000 per premises or three percent of the gross receipts of a licensed
organization from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the organization,
whichever is less. Payment shall be made no later than 25 days after the end of the preceding
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the Minnesota
Department of Revenue.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect on January 1, 2011.
Public Hearing First Reading September 7, 2010
First Reading continued October 4, 2010
Second Reading October 18, 2010
Summary Ordinance Published October 28, 2010
Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2011
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___-10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF
ORDINANCES RELATING TO GAMBLING
This ordinance amends the gambling licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park regarding
local gambling tax and distribution of proceeds. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2011.
Adopted by the City Council October 18, 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 28, 2010
Gambling ActivityComparison of Fee OptionsCity of St. Louis Park LocationsJanuary 1, 2009 - December 31, 20091.25% Tax OptionOrganization/SiteGross ReceiptsPrizes Paid OutGross Profit1.25% Local Tax 3% Local Tax Proposed Flat Fee of $3,000Community Charities American Legion Post 282$1,815,155 $1,530,357 $284,798$3,560$8,544$3,000 Park Tavern$1,641,143 $1,373,585 $267,558$3,344$8,027$3,000 Texa Tonka Lanes$145,231 $113,912 $31,319$391$940$940Hopkins Raspberry Assoc. Al's Bar (thru Jul 09)$595,954 $480,419 $115,535N/AN/AN/A Laredo's (Feb 09 thru Dec 09)$153,245 $127,706 $25,539N/AN/AN/A McCoy's (based on 2nd Qtr 2010)$14,136$177$424$424SLP Hockey Boosters Assoc. Bunny's$2,963,408 $2,488,789 $474,619$5,933$14,239$3,000$13,405$10,364Notes:All figures are based on the full year of 2009, with the exception of Hopkins Raspberry Assoc. They now operate at McCoy's and havesubstantially lower profits. Their calculation is estimated based on the Qtr of April 2010 to June 2010.Alternate Tax Based on Flat Fee Option (not to exceed 3% of profits)City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Second Reading Gambling Ordinance Amendments Page 9
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting
TITLE:
1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending and restating Ordinance No. 2244-03
imposing a franchise fee on Xcel Energy and setting the Second Reading for November 1, 2010.
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending and restating Ordinance No. 2245-03
imposing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy and setting second reading for November 1, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to increase the franchise fees for both Xcel Energy and CenterPoint
Energy to assist in funding the City’s Pavement Management Program?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council acted to implement franchise fees on CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy in
January of 2004. These franchise fees have not changed since they were first implemented by
Council. Franchise fees in St. Louis Park are used in their entirety to assist in funding the cost the
City experiences to maintain, reconstruct and repair the street system via the City’s Pavement
Management Program. Neither General Fund dollars nor special assessments to property owners are
used to fund this program. The franchise fee is essentially a user fee collected from customers on
their utility bill and paid to CenterPoint and Xcel. The utility then functions essentially as a pass
through entity with the franchise fee revenue being remitted to the City of St. Louis Park.
Given funding deficits projected for the City’s Pavement Management Fund over the next ten years,
in 2009 the City Council inquired about the City’s ability to increase franchise fees to insure the
Pavement Management Program could be continued and fully funded. Based on discussions with
CenterPoint and Xcel, there is no opposition for the City to increase the franchise fees to assist in
funding the Pavement Management Program. Further, it was the goal of the City to negotiate an
agreement with the utilities that allowed for automatic yearly or alternating year increases, but the
ability to do this requires more discussion. Staff will continue to explore this option in the future.
On June 14, 2010, staff provided Council with three different possible franchise fee increases. Based
on the uncertainty of future increases, and the current fee structure compared to most metro cities,
Council directed staff to proceed with a $0.75/month increase per utility to residential customers.
Based on customer class, customers would see increases ranging from $0.75/month per utility for
residential to $8.00/month for large commercial/industrial (see attachment #3). Residential
customers make up approximately 90% of the total customers. Based on the current schedule,
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
which requires two readings of the amended ordinances on October 18 and November 1, and the 60
days needed for the utilities to implement the fee changes, the new fees would take effect February 1,
2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Franchise fees have historically generated approximately $920,000 annually, which is used to fund
the Pavement Management Program. Based on the current Long Range Financial Management
Plan, the Pavement Management Fund will have a deficit balance by the end of 2015 if the program
is maintained at its current level. The proposed increases would add approximately $410,000 in
additional revenue to the Pavement Management Program, and provide greater sustainability into
the future. By implementing the proposed franchise fee increases for 2011, St. Louis Park would
still be very competitive with other cities, as the attached information demonstrates. Any approved
additional franchise fees will remain dedicated to funding capital needs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Ordinance Amending and Restating Ordinance #2244-03
Ordinance Amending and Restating Ordinance #2245-03
Proposed Franchise Fee Increases by Utility
Franchise Fee Comparative Info for CenterPoint
Franchise Fee Comparative Info for Xcel
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDINANCE NO. 2244-03
IMPOSING A FRANCHISE FEE ON XCEL ENERGY, A MINNESOTA
CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO. 2086-97 SECTION 9-610
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) granted to Northern States Power
Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy (“Company”) a franchise for the furnishing
of electric energy to the City, its inhabitants, and others, and for the use of public ways and public
grounds of the City for such purposes, pursuant to St. Louis Park Ordinance No. 2086-97;
WHEREAS, Section 9-610 of Ordinance No. 2086-97 states that the City may impose on
Company a franchise fee by separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council;
WHEREAS, Section 9-610 of Ordinance No. 2086-97 limits the imposition of any
franchise fee to an amount determined by collecting not more than the amounts indicated in Section
9-610 of Ordinance No. 2086-97 from each customer in the designated company customer
classification for metered service at each and every customer location;
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a franchise fee in addition to any permit or other
fees imposed on the Company;
WHEREAS, the collection as a franchise fee of the amounts indicated below from each
customer in the designated company customer classification for metered service at each and every
customer classification is authorized under Section 9-610 of Ordinance No. 2086-97:
Metered Service-Based Fee Schedule
Customer Classification Amount Per Month
Residential $ 2.00
Small C & I and Municipal with no demand charge $ 4.00
Small C & I and Municipal with demand charge $13.25
Large C & I and Municipal $73.00
Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand $4.00
Municipal Pumping – Demand $10.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 3
WHEREAS, at least 60 days have elapsed since service on the Company by certified mail of
the written notice enclosing this proposed ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that:
1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.
2. A franchise fee to be collected in the amounts indicated below from each customer in the
designated company customer classification for metered service at each and every customer
classification is hereby imposed on the Company commencing with its billing month of February
2011, and paid to City quarterly:
Metered Service-Based Fee Schedule
Customer Classification Amount Per Month
Residential $ 2.00
Small C & I and Municipal with no demand charge $ 4.00
Small C & I and Municipal with demand charge $13.25
Large C & I and Municipal $73.00
3. The franchise fee shall be payable monthly and remitted to the City quarterly. The
Company shall pay the fee based upon the amount billed its customers subject to subsequent
reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The Company agrees to make its
billing and related records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times.
This ordinance shall be effective 60 days after service on the Company by certified mail of
written notice enclosing the ordinance as adopted.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2010, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ____________
___ _____
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
_____
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 4
ORDINANCE NO. _______-10
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING ORDINANCE
NO. 2245-03 IMPOSING A FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT
ENERGY MINNEGASCO, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION,
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE NO. 2236-03, SECTION 7.1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) granted to Centerpoint Energy
Minnegasco, Inc. (“Company”) a franchise for the transportation, distribution, manufacture and sale
of gas energy for public and private use and to use the public ground of the City of St. Louis Park for
such purposes, pursuant to St. Louis Park Ordinance No. 2236-03;
WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of Ordinance No. 2236-03 states that the City may impose on
Company a franchise fee by separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council;
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a franchise fee in addition to any permit or other
fees imposed on the Company;
WHEREAS, at least 60 days have elapsed since service on the Company by certified mail of
the written notice enclosing this proposed ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that:
1. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance.
2. A franchise fee to be collected in the amounts indicated below from each customer in the
designated company customer classification for metered service at each and every customer
classification is hereby imposed on the Company:
Metered Service-Based Fee Schedule
Customer Classification Fee Per Account Per Month
Residential $ 2.00
Commercial - A $ 2.00
Commercial/Industrial - B $ 4.00
Commercial/Industrial - C $13.25
Small Dual Fuel A&B $13.25
Large Dual Fuel $73.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 5
3. The franchise fee shall be payable monthly and remitted to the City quarterly. The
Company shall pay the fee based upon the amount billed its customers subject to subsequent
reductions to account for uncollectibles or customer refunds. The Company agrees to make its
billing and related records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times.
This ordinance shall be effective 60 days after service on the Company by certified mail of
written notice enclosing the ordinance as adopted.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2010, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ___________
____
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
____
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 6
City of St Louis Park, Minnesota
2011 Proposed Franchise Fees
Franchise Fees Increases by Utility
Xcel - Electric
CUSTOMER CLASS
AVERAGE
MONTHLY
CUSTOMER
COUNT
2010 MONTHLY
FLAT FEE
2011 New Fee
Proposal
Increase 2010 to
2011
Residential*22,306 $1.25 $2.00 $0.75
Small C&I – Non-Demand*1,355 $4.00 $4.00 $0.00
Small C&I – Demand 627 $10.00 $13.25 $3.25
Large C&I 146 $65.00 $73.00 $8.00
Public Street Lighting 75
not exempted
but fee not applied
Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand 21 $4.00 $4.00 $0.00
Municipal Pumping – Demand 18 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00
Total 24,548
CenterPoint - Heating Gas
CUSTOMER CLASS
AVERAGE
MONTHLY
CUSTOMER
COUNT
2010 MONTHLY
FLAT FEE
2011 New Fee
Proposal
Increase 2010 to
2011
Residential 15,666 $1.25 $2.00 $0.75
Commercial A 584 $1.25 $2.00 $0.75
Commercial B 398 $4.00 $4.00 $0.00
Commercial C 550 $10.00 $13.25 $3.25
Small Dual Fuel A&B 79 $10.00 $13.25 $3.25
Large Dual Fuel 4 $65.00 $73.00 $8.00
Total 17,281
10/14/2010
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FRANCHISE FEE ANALYSIS
COMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
CenterPoint Franchise Fees
Flat Rates
City Res Comm A Comm B Comm C SVDF A SVDF B LVDF
Afton 2.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Anoka 2.75 2.75 8.00 35.00 75.00 300.00 900.00
Benson 2.00 3.33 4.00 10.00 13.33 10.00 50.00
Blue Earth 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Brooklyn Center 1.52 1.58 5.15 20.60 51.50 98.88 98.88
Champlin 2.50 2.50 8.00 35.00 70.00 125.00 125.00
Cottage Grove 1.25 3.25 6.25 6.25 12.50 12.50 18.75
Deephaven 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Hopkins 1.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 18.00 63.00 63.00
Little Falls 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Long Prairie 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mankato 0.95 2.50 5.25 12.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Morris 2.00 5.00 9.00 27.00 35.00 35.00 750.00
Mound 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
New Hope 1.50 3.00 6.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 60.00
North Mankato 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 75.00
Oakdale 1.00 4.50 4.50 7.50 15.00 15.00 15.00
Prior Lake 1.50 1.50 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 50.00
Richfield 1.65 1.65 5.10 11.33 11.33 11.33 11.33
Waseca 1.40 1.80 5.00 16.00 100.00 150.00 300.00
Average 1.67$ 2.83$ 5.01$ 11.94$ 23.70$ 44.84$ 122.05$
St. Louis Park (proposed) $2.00 $2.00 $4.00 $13.25 $13.25 $13.25 $73.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FRANCHISE FEE ANALYSIS
COMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
Xcel Franchise Fees
Flat Rates
Sm C/I Sm C/I Mun Pump Mun Pump
City Res Non-Demand Demand Lg C/I St Lights Non-Demand Demand
Afton 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Baker (U) 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brooklyn Center 1.52 3.10 20.60 99.00 12.40 12.40 12.40
Champlin 2.50 8.00 35.00 125.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Chisago City 1.30 5.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00
Circle Pines 2.75 3.00 35.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00
Cottage Grove 1.25 1.25 6.25 25.00 2.50 0.63 6.25
Deephaven 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Dilworth 1.75 4.00 14.00 91.00 0.00 4.00 14.00
Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Faribault 1.35 1.60 32.00 280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Goodview 2.75 3.00 25.00 110.00 25.00 2.50 10.00
Grant 2.35 2.00 14.00 75.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Hopkins 1.00 2.00 9.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lindstrom 1.30 5.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00
Little Canada 1.75 4.00 24.00 0.00 15.00 1.00 7.00
Mahtomedi 1.30 1.38 14.40 110.28 12.71 0.63 14.84
Mankato 0.50 1.00 10.00 130.00 1.00 0.25 1.00
Maplewood 0.50 1.00 6.00 45.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
Minnetonka 2.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 4.50 4.50
Monticello 1.95 5.50 31.00 190.00 12.00 12.00 31.00
Mound 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
New Hope 1.50 4.50 9.00 36.00 4.50 4.50 4.50
Newport 0.50 1.00 6.00 50.00 4.00 1.00 5.00
North Mankato 0.75 1.10 9.25 125.00 13.25 1.10 9.25
Oakdale 1.00 2.00 9.00 7.50 6.00 1.50 7.50
Prior Lake 1.50 5.00 10.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Richfield 1.65 5.10 11.33 73.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sartell 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75
St. Joseph 1.00 1.75 10.00 8.00 1.00 10.00
St. Michael 2.50 2.50 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00
St. Paul Park 1.50 2.00 25.00 335.00 10.00 1.00 5.00
Stillwater 2.00 2.50 18.00 125.00 4.00 2.00 18.00
Watertown 2.00 3.50 15.00 50.00 0.00 12.50 20.00
Average 1.74$ 2.98$ 13.25$ 70.75$ 5.34$ 3.04$ 7.31$
St. Louis Park (proposed)$2.00 $4.00 $13.25 $73.00 $0.00 $4.00 $10.00
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: 1st Reading - Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Page 9
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 8-33 for Business License Fees and Adopting
Sections 8-333 and 8-334 regarding Multi-family Rental Licensing Provisions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt second reading of the ordinance, approve summary and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to proceed with the amendments to Chapter 8 as proposed by staff and the
city attorney?
BACKGROUND:
Research and discussion on the proposed ordinance began March 1, 2010 when Council considered
possible amendments to the City Code and its rental licensing program in order to better improve
the effectiveness of the City in addressing significant property maintenance and/or management
issues with multi-family rental properties. A draft ordinance was reviewed with Council during the
June 7, 2010 Study Session and subsequently presented to multi-family rental license holders who
attended meetings held in June and July with representatives from the Police and Inspections
Departments.
On October 4 the City Council approved the first reading of the proposed ordinance. During this
meeting three persons representing two apartment owners and the Minnesota Multi-Housing
Association offered comments and raised questions regarding the effect of the proposed ordinance.
The City Council asked that staff meet with these persons prior to the second reading and report
back on possible changes which should be made to the ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
Subsequent to the first reading staff met with the three representatives to discuss the intent of the
proposed ordinance and review their questions or suggestions.
Questions and discussion centered around the following:
• Why include property maintenance violations as criteria for a Provisional License?
There is an intertwined connection between good property maintenance and crime-free
practices to maintain quality housing for the apartment residents and larger community.
Failure to maintain a property is a valid trigger to consider a Provisional License. The
variables in working with an owner to make physical corrections to a property require the
flexibility provided in proposed section 8-333 (a) (4). “Consistent failure to maintain”
the property means a repeating or continuing problem which the owner is not resolving.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
A specified time for corrections or other rigid parameters are not practical. In some
cases, an owner will be successfully working to perform major repairs such as replacing
rotting wood decks, a project that could span over two calendar years.
• What determines when a Police contact occurs?
Only when a Police officer observes a violation of the crime-free criteria identified in the
Code occurring and the report is reviewed by senior Police staff is the event recorded as a
crime-free call. This would be a continuation of the current procedure which has been
successful over the past few years.
• Is a two-tiered system based on building size needed?
A higher call level is proposed to prevent small buildings with 3-11 units from being
considered prematurely for a Provisional License because of a single problem tenant
causing several police calls in an otherwise problem free building. The 0.7 average calls
per unit per year for larger buildings of 12 units and above is about 3 ½ times the
average call level for buildings based on data collected from 2008 and 2009. Achieving
the 0.7 call level would represent significant activity requiring Police involvement at a
building indicating some action may be needed to identify the problem and pursue
changes.
• How can guest actions and events not located on the licensed property be counted as Police
contacts?
A licensed rental business not being effectively managed can attract and allow
criminal/nuisance activity to occur, even serving as a refuge for those committing
criminal activities nearby.
As a result of the suggestions offered during the meeting and to improve the clarity of intent, the
City Attorney has added the following language, identified by red type, into the ordinance for
second reading:
1. Section 8-333 (b) added the wording “and the incident is connected to the licensed
premises” to clarify the activity was connected to the property and can be considered
a police contact;
2. Section 8-333 (e) added the word “unauthorized” before guests.
While these changes may not address a philosophical difference some may have to the purpose of the
city’s rental business license, they do improve clarity of intent and make for better code language.
Provisions within the proposed ordinance require the same consistent and reasonable application of
all city codes. Maintaining more general code language is helpful to ensure the effectiveness of the
program in resolving the concerns leading to the ordinance development. Arbitrary enforcement of
an ordinance would not be supported through the legal system. The general provisions of business
licensing in Chapter 8 Article II apply for all license types including multi-family rental and provide
for an administrative hearing process.
If adopted, the ordinance would become effective 15 days after publication and be in effect for
review of 2011 license applications.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No budget changes are proposed at this time, licensing and inspection are intended to be a fee for
service program.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction of providing a well
maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE
FOR A PROVISIONAL RENTAL HOUSING LICENSE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by amending the
following section:
Sec. 8-33. Fees.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all fees for licenses under this chapter,
including investigation fees, shall be set by ordinance of the city council and listed as appendix
A of this Code. New fees called for by any ordinance subsequently adopted may be adopted by
ordinance of the council at second reading and codified into Appendix A at the time of the next
annual review by the council. In the case of contractor, business and animal licenses, license
applications received within the last 30 days of the license term will be issued a license for the
following year in the fee amount set for the following calendar year. New business licenses
issued licenses between July 1 and December 1 shall be charged a license fee equal to one-half
the annual fee set forth in Appendix A.
Section 2. Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the
following section:
Sec. 8-333. Provisional Licenses.
(a) A licensed premises is only eligible for a provisional license under the following
circumstances:
(1) a licensed premises with between three and eleven dwelling units has generated
an average of 1.0 or more police contacts per dwelling unit in the preceding
twelve (12) month period; or
(2) a licensed premises with twelve or more dwelling units that has generated an
average of 0.7 or more police contacts per dwelling unit in the preceding twelve
(12) month period; or
(3) the existence of substantial on-going public safety concerns; or
(4) licensee’s consistent failure to maintain compliance with property maintenance
and other City Code requirements.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
Page 4
(b) Police contacts counted to determine whether a provisional license is required include
disorderly use activities, criminal activity and drug related criminal activity defined in
Section 8-331. The police contact shall be counted if it involves an incident that occurs
anywhere on the licensed premises regardless of who is involved, or near the licensed
premises if the contact involves tenants or guests of the licensed premises and the
incident is connected to the licensed premises.
(c) Police contacts will not be counted for purposes of determining whether a provisional
license is required where the victim and suspect are “family or household members” as
defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b)
and where there is a report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a).
(d) The period of time used to determine whether a provisional license is required based
upon the number of police contacts is the twelve (12) month period ending two months
before the expiration of the existing license. Additionally, upon sixty (60) days notice to
the licensee, a regular license may be converted to a provisional license if substantial on-
going public safety concerns exist.
(e) The existence of substantial on-going public safety concerns that make a licensed
premises only eligible for a provisional license even though the number of police calls
does not meet the above threshold shall be determined by the Chief of Police. Factors
that will be considered include the nature and severity of the incidents giving rise to the
police contacts, any evidence that tenants are being discouraged or intimidated from
making police contacts, the level of community policing activity compared to similar
properties, the number of unauthorized guests and other non-tenants at the premises and
the licensee’s timeliness and diligence in evicting or otherwise addressing public safety
concerns.
(f) If a licensee is determined to be only eligible for a provisional license, the licensee must
submit to the City manager or designee for review a mitigation plan for the license
period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the
number of police contacts and public safety concerns to a level that qualifies for a regular
license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening
procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant
conduct and security personnel. If there has been a consistent failure to promptly meet
property maintenance and other code requirements, the mitigation plan shall describe the
steps to eliminate the problem.
(g) In addition to an approved mitigation plan, a provisional license will only be issued if the
following conditions are also met:
(1) Owner and manager or managers have all successfully completed, or will
promptly complete, a training program provided or specified by the City.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
Page 5
(2) Managers must be resident managers or on-site managers who are on site or
available 24 hours a day.
(3) The licensee must provide the City with a current Certificate of Insurance
providing proof of property and general liability coverage. The City may notify
the insurer of the license status of the property.
(h) After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard, the City Manager or designee shall
approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan.
In evaluating a mitigation plan, the City Manager or designee will consider, among other
things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of the causes for
police contacts and general public safety concerns, and the expected effectiveness of
measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police contacts or incidents of
property maintenance and other code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan
submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the City Manager or
designee will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in any previous
mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police
contacts, address overall public safety concerns or reduce property maintenance and other
code violations.
(i) The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the City
Manager or designee. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee
shall mail or deliver to the City Manager or designee a written report describing all steps
taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. A provisional
license will be issued for up to a maximum of twelve months.
(j) The fee for a provisional license shall be established by ordinance. The licensee having a
regular license converted to a provisional license within the regular license term must pay
the license fee difference.
Section 3. Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the
following section:
Sec. 8-334. License Suspension, Revocation, Denial and Non-Renewal.
(a) Every regular or provisional rental housing license issued under the provisions of Section
8-326 to 8-333 is subject to suspension, revocation or non-renewal pursuant to Section 8-
36.
(b) The City may revoke, suspend or decline to renew any regular or provisional rental
housing license issued pursuant to Sections 8-326 to 8-333 upon any of the following
grounds:
(1) false statements on any application or other information or report required by this
Chapter to be given by the applicant or licensee.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
Page 6
(2) failure to pay any application, penalty, reinspection or reinstatement fee required
by this Chapter and City Council resolution.
(3) failure to correct deficiencies indentified in violation notices within the specified
time for maintaining the building and property in compliance with Sec. 8-329 or
failure to accommodate inspections are required by Sec. 8-330.
(4) failure to comply with the provisions of an approved mitigation plan in the case of
provisional licenses.
(5) failure to operate or maintain the licensed premises in conformity with all
applicable state laws and regulations and this Code of Ordinances.
(6) actions by the licensee which constitute either intimidation of or retaliation against
a tenant relating to the initiation of a police contact, the reporting of a potential
property maintenance violation or other communication to any public official or
other third party about the condition of the property or activities occurring on or
near the licensed premises.
(7) any other violation of this Chapter.
(c) Licenses may be suspended for up to six (6) months and may, after the period of
suspension, be reinstated subject to compliance with this Chapter and any conditions
imposed by the City at the time of suspension. Licenses that are revoked will not be
reinstated until the owner has applied for and secured a new license and complied with all
conditions imposed at the time of revocation.
(d) In the event that a license is suspended, revoked or not renewed, it shall be unlawful for
the owner or the owner’s duly authorized agent to thereafter permit any new occupancies
of vacant or thereafter vacated rental units until such time as a valid license may be
restored. Revocation, suspension or non-renewal of a license shall not excuse the owner
from compliance with all state laws and regulations and this Code of Ordinances for as
long as any units in the facility are occupied. Failure to comply with all terms of this
Chapter during the term of revocation, suspension or non-renewal is a misdemeanor and
grounds for extension of the term of such revocation or suspension or continuation of
non-renewal, or for a decision not to reinstate the license, notwithstanding any limitations
on the period of suspension, revocation or non-renewal.
(e) Nothing in this section shall permit occupancy of a licensed premises or individual
dwelling unit if the Certificate of Occupancy is revoked or the licensed premies or unit is
posted uninhabitable.
Section 4. Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the
following section:
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
Page 7
Sec. 8-335. Provisional License Fee
The fee for a provisional license shall be twice the amount of an equivalent regular license, with
such fee being set by ordinance by the City Council and codified as part of Appendix A to the
City Code.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2010, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Amending Sec 8-33 & Adopting Sec 8-333 & 8-334
Page 8
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement to
redevelop the Dakota Park baseball and fastpitch softball fields and surrounding facilities under the
provisions of the Hennepin Youth Sports Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council supportive of applying for this grant for the proposed 2012 Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) to reconstruct the fields at Dakota Park?
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to provide funding to
extend library hours and allow construction of youth sports facilities through the use of a portion of
the sales tax revenue for the new Twins baseball stadium. Up to $ 4 million annually will be
dedicated to Library Ballpark Sundays and the Hennepin Youth Sports Program.
The Hennepin Youth Sports Program was created to provide local units of government the
opportunity to develop facilities for amateur sports or recreation. The grants will range from
$10,000 to $400,000. Eligible recipients include municipalities, park districts or school districts to
create, expand or improve sport or recreation facilities. The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission
(MASC) is responsible for managing the grant process on behalf of Hennepin County. The County
Board will make the final determination of the grant award recipients.
Eligible Park Project in St. Louis Park
Staff has reviewed the grant program and believes the redevelopment of the baseball and girls
fastpitch softball fields at Dakota Park is an eligible project since baseball and softball fields are listed
as park elements that could be funded through this grant. In our 2012 CIP, we have $70,000
budgeted for redeveloping the baseball field and replacing the score board. If we are awarded the
grant, we will also redevelop both softball fields that are used by the Girl’s Fastpitch Association and
the girl’s high school team. We had planned to redevelop the baseball field first since the softball
fields are in better condition. If we are not awarded the grant, we will either reapply the next year or
conform to the original plan indicated in the CIP.
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item 8d) Page 2
Subject: Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 - 2014 CIP proposes that $70,000 be spent from the Park Improvement Fund to
redevelop the baseball field and scoreboard at Dakota Park in 2012. We would like to ask for a grant
in the amount of $292,000 to allow us to redevelop the girl’s fastpitch softball fields in addition to
adding new backstop and perimeter fencing at all the fields at Dakota Park in 2012.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Applying for this grant falls in line with the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis park is
committed to being a connected and engaged community”.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item 8d) Page 3
Subject: Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION
AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP SPORT OR
RECREATION FACILITIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
HENNEPIN YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Hennepin County, via its Youth Sports Grant Program, provides for capital funds
to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of sport or recreation
facilities, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to redevelop a baseball and girl’s fastpitch softball
complex at Dakota Park for the purpose of use as an athletic facility.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The estimate of the total cost of redeveloping a baseball and girl’s fastpitch complex shall be $362,000
and the City of St. Louis Park is requesting $292,000 from the Hennepin County Legacy Grant
program. The city will assume responsibility for a match requirement of $70,000.
2. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to own, assume one hundred (100) percent of operation costs for a
baseball and fastpitch softball complex, and will operate baseball and fastpitch softball complex for its
intended purpose for the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 25 years.
3. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to enter into necessary and required agreement with Hennepin
County for the specific purpose of constructing a sport or recreational facility and long-term program
direction.
4. That the Director of Parks and Recreation or the City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park are
authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as official liaison with Hennepin County
or its authorized representative.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and
adopted by the City Council at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 18th day of October, 2010
as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 18, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Change Order #6 to City Contract 79-09, St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center (MSC)
Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order #6 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2009 the Council awarded the contract for the MSC Renovation Project to Jorgenson
Construction Inc. in the amount of $8,164,000.
On October 11, 2010 City staff provided the Council with a summary of the financial aspects of the
budget and proposed Change Order #6.
This report covers 63 minor change orders totaling $118,625. The items listed below, which were
necessary to complete the project, fall into three primary areas – unexpected costs related to the
remodeling portion of the project, finalization of the office space build out, and soils issues.
Proposal Requests by City or Architect
PR #5 Add rigid insulation over storm sewer pipe 199
PR #9 Changes to site elevations at catch basin/curb 4,458
PR #34 1st Floor office changes – add urinal, add
coat closet, modify conference room
6,377
PR #35 Credit for railing changes (851)
PR #47 Changes to locker room area 2,561
PR #51 Add generator connection cabinet, required
for wheelchair lift
8,721
PR #52 Change panic door hardware 176
PR #61 Modify plenum over women’s restroom 1,085
PR #62 Miscellaneous electrical items 220
PR #63 Add four magnetic hold opens 3,542
PR #65 Existing office changes – code and unknown
plumbing issues
20,654
PR #66 Add metal at base of vehicle maintenance
pilasters
1,133
PR #67 Carpet backing change (206)
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Subject: Change Order #6 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
Proposal Requests by General Contractor
GCPR#44 Add vertical detail at metal siding 202
GCPR#49 Delete in-floor outlet ( 175)
GCPR#62 Miscellaneous electrical in maintenance bay 1,315
GCPR#63 Additional fire alarm devices per Fire Marshall 1,249
GCPR#66 Excavation for sewer line at future mobile home
location
364
GCPR#67 Fencing for election equipment and sports
organizations
4,345
GCPR#72 Site concrete changes 2,621
GCPR#74 Casework changes 1,614
GCPR#75 Soils work at pond outlet to stabilize structure 9,171
GCPR#76 Relocated manhole due to unknown existing
underground utilities
3,250
GCPR#77 Add ring at catch basin 165
GCPR#81 Replace wet insulation 925
GCPR#83 Add gyp wall at men’s room 816
GCPR#89 Re-grade at truck entry/gate 616
GCPR#92 Add concrete curb at washer/dryer 1,521
GCPR#93 Site water pumping at pond 2,093
GCPR#94 Site removal of pedestrian ramps 944
GCPR#96 Add silt fence at pond stock pile 2,983
GCPR#97 Cover contaminated soil stockpile with poly 2,405
GCPR#99 Soil correction east of salt/sand building at
mixing pad area
3,452
GCPR#101 Remove asphalt chuck 3,907
GCPR#103 Added parapet wall at existing west wall 3,783
GCPR#104 Cost for asphalt ramps 3,115
GCPR#105 Add vent at lube systems per Fire Marshall 1,728
GCPR#106 Demo existing window at sign shop 1,206
GCPR#107 Add topping at existing shower area 2,155
GCPR#108 Add irrigation to shrubs 268
GCPR#109 Add pipe from valve to RPZ for irrigation
system
572
GCPR#110 Infill floor registers 1,370
GCPR#112 Change sections of curbing to surmountable 289
GCPR#113 Install tile backer over cmu at showers 1,577
GCPR#114 Replace curb damaged by owner 668
GCPR#115 Extend flush valve riser 348
GCPR#116 Extend piping to existing water cooler 404
GCPR#117 Add gyp at window in elevator equipment
room
433
GCPR#119 Relocating existing conduits in demoed wall 2,639
City Council Meeting of October 18, 2010 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Subject: Change Order #6 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
GCPR#120 Install roof vent for generator 330
GCPR#121 Signage changes 50
GCPR#122 Add condensate line for condensing unit 943
GCPR#123 Add bollard at truck entry 393
GCPR#124 Extend ramp in bay one 835
GCPR#125 Remove aprons at west vehicle storage 646
GCPR#126 Curb modifications (1,000)
GCPR#127 Replace electrical panel at salt/sand building per
inspector
402
GCPR#128 Level existing bathroom floor 726
GCPR#129 Add painting of existing stairway 605
GCPR#130 Add post at truck entry for pre-emption device 1,076
GCPR#131 Add steel plates at three door head locations 661
GCPR#132 Add rip-rap at roof drain catch basins 248
GCPR#133 Remove additional trees near park entrance 303
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Original Contract $8,164,000
Change Order #1-approved 10/5/2009 (107,073)
Change Order #2 –approved 12/7/2009 98,541
Change Order #3 – approved 1/19/2010 28,319
Change Order #4 – approved 4/19/2010 36,569
Change Order #5 – approved 7/6/2010 55,628
Change Order #6 118,625
Revised Contract Amount $8,394,609
The total MSC Renovation Project budget is $9,518,292 for all design and construction costs.
Change Order #6 was discussed with Council at the October 11, 2010 Study Session. It is
anticipated the project will continue to come in under the total budget for this project.
CONTRACT TERMS:
All remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction related to environmental
stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager