HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 6, 2010
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:00 p.m. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
Written Reports
2. Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
3. Demolition of 3764 Wooddale Avenue, 5718 Goodrich Avenue and 5724 Goodrich
Avenue – Fire Station Project
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 November 15, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply
property)
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Purchase
Agreement between Mary and Karl Johnson and the EDA for 7015 Walker Street and
authorize the President and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to
complete the real estate transaction.
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. Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
3b. City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
3c. Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
3d. Special Study Session Minutes November 15, 2010
3e. City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
Meeting of December 6, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Recommended Action: Staff will present information pertaining to the 2011 property
tax supported budgets, 2011 General Property Tax Levy and other general tax
information. After the presentation, the Mayor is asked to open the public hearing,
solicit comments and close the public hearing. There is no other formal action required
at this time.
6b. Public Hearing – Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General Obligation Bonds – Series 2010C
Recommended Action: Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close
the public hearing pertaining to the Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General
Obligation Bonds – Series 2010C.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for the General Obligation Bonds for Louisiana
Court – Series 2010C and the Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt Resolutions awarding the sale of:
• Approximately $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C; and
• Approximately $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America
Bonds), Series 2010D
8b. Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the execution of the
required documents to provide a $500,000 deferred loan to The Louisiana Court
Limited Partnership to assist in funding a reduction in debt and the undertaking of
capital improvements at Louisiana Court.
8c. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use
Permit application for in-vehicle sales and service for property located at 5001
Excelsior Boulevard.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of December 6, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing award of the 2011 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture
Grants
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $24,015.13 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project - Texas Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project No.
2008-1101, City Contract No. 122-09
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $11,301.09 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project – Alabama Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project
No.2009-1100, City Contract No. 72-09
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,146.99 for the 2010
City Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 2010-0001, City
Contract No.110-10
4e. Approve execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2011 Boulevard Tree
Pruning Contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000
4f. Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire
suppression sprinkler system at 6500 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN
4g. Approve Amendment No.1 to Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement,
County Contract No. A081254, extending the current Agreement between Hennepin
County and the City of St. Louis Park for one additional year.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff desires direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the implementation of a
lodging tax and the creation of a convention and visitors bureau. The options appear to be as
follows:
• Proceed with adoption of the 2nd Reading of the ordinance which creates a lodging tax at
the December 20 meeting and undertake the necessary steps to form a convention and
visitors bureau.
• Continue to work with the hoteliers over the next 30 to 45 days to further understand and
attempt to address their questions and concerns. Staff would then return to the City
Council to report on the results of the discussions and receive direction.
• Discontinue efforts on the implementation of a lodging tax and the creation of a
conventions and visitors bureau.
BACKGROUND:
For over a year the City Council has been discussing the possible formation of a convention and
visitors bureau (CVB) to promote St. Louis Park as a destination for all forms of tourism
including visitors, meetings, conferences, conventions, festivals and special events. During that
period much research has been conducted on the concept and considerable public process has
occurred with local stakeholders (including six meetings with the St. Louis Park hotels) in
conjunction with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the City Council has
reviewed the formal documents needed to establish a CVB so as to affirm the premise and
structure of the proposed organization. These documents included a Concept Plan, Articles of
Incorporation, Bylaws, Operating Agreement, preliminary budget and Lodging Tax Ordinance.
At the October 4th Study Session it was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with the
formal establishment of a CVB to further the economic development and vitality of St. Louis
Park. Such a process involves the holding of a public hearing, the adoption of an ordinance
establishing a local lodging tax, and the subsequent approval of an Operating Agreement
between the City and the CVB.
On November 1st, a public hearing was held to provide the community the opportunity to
officially comment on the proposed Ordinance. A representative of the Doubletree Hotel was in
attendance to express opposition to the creation of a lodging tax. After discussion, the Council
adopted first reading of the proposed Ordinance and set the second reading for November 15th.
Subsequent to November 1 representatives of some of the other local hotels came forward and
voiced their concerns regarding proposed tax. As a result, the second and final reading of the
ordinance was removed from the November 15th City Council agenda in order for staff to meet
with these representatives again to further understand their concerns. Staff then met with them on
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
November 23rd. At that meeting the hotel representatives voiced several concerns which are
summarized as follows:
The first is that the City has not demonstrated quantitatively the anticipated economic value or
return on investment (ROI) to be derived from the proposed CVB. When asked what benchmark
or ROI they would need to see in order for the proposed CVB to earn their endorsement, they
indicated that the room revenue generated by such an organization would have to be
approximately 10 times the room tax revenue provided. Thus if the CVB receives, for instance,
$600,000 in room tax revenue it would need to demonstrate that it generated $6 million in
additional hotel revenue to be considered a worthwhile venture.
The second concern was similar and that is the City has not demonstrated precisely how much
incremental out-of-market business was anticipated to be captured by the CVB.
The third concern was that whatever incremental economic value the CVB generates it would not
offset the potential loss of revenue to properties in neighboring communities (such as Golden
Valley, Plymouth and Minnetonka) that have no such tax, thus placing their properties at a
competitive disadvantage. They were particularly concerned about how large corporate
customers in the area (such as Allianz, General Mills and Cargill) would react to such a tax,
whether they would see the value of a CVB, and whether they would steer their business to
neighboring communities without the tax.
The fourth concern related to how such an organization demonstrates that its activities are not
simply re-aggregating business the hoteliers have already captured or plan to capture.
Absent satisfactory responses to the above, the hoteliers indicated they could not support the
proposed lodging tax. Having said that, the hoteliers strongly indicated that if the City proceeded
and approved the tax they would nonetheless be supportive of the new CVB and would lend their
assistance to make it successful.
OBSERVATIONS:
In light of the concerns raised by the hoteliers, staff would like to share the following thoughts.
The purpose of the lodging tax is to fund a convention and visitors bureau whose primary
purpose is to market the city so as to generate commerce in St. Louis Park. Staff would note that
the most recent Explore Minnesota Economic Impact Study revealed that for every $1 invested
in tourism marketing it returned an estimated $53 in gross sales, $20.40 in wages and $4.60 in
state and local taxes. A properly run CVB has the potential to generate substantial direct and
indirect revenue for St. Louis Park through its marketing and sales efforts. Precisely what the full
economic impact of such an organization is likely to be is frankly unknown at this juncture. Any
customized study to determine such an impact would ultimately be conjecture as there are so
many variables and unknowns that could come into play. Admittedly, in the short term, as the
proposed CVB begins its operations it is not likely to provide much of a return on investment. In
the long run however a CVB with well-reasoned business and marketing plans properly executed
should generate a substantial economic return for the community. What we do know is that the
community and its numerous offerings are not currently being promoted to their fullest extent
and, absent an organization like a CVB, they likely won’t be. We also know there are market
opportunities to be gained in the areas of leisure tourism, meetings and conventions, and special
events if St. Louis Park were to package and promote its various advantages.
Another thing to be kept in mind is that while the proposed CVB’s primary purpose is to market
the city so as to generate commerce, that would not be its sole responsibility. Other activities will
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
include promotion and enhancement of local festivals and events as well as elevating the St.
Louis Park brand within the local and regional marketplace. These are intangibles but
nonetheless help strengthen both the fabric and identity of the community.
As for losing customers to neighboring communities without such a tax, hospitality industry
representatives have indicated that most travelers are brand driven. This means that the type of
traveler that customarily chooses, for instance, to stay at the Hilton Homewood Suites in St.
Louis Park is unlikely to choose to stay at the Holiday Inn Express in Golden Valley simply to
avoid a 3% room tax. While the hotel industry is indeed highly competitive (especially for
meetings and conventions) there are more significant factors that determine where these events
are held and where lodging customers choose to spend the night other than the room tax.
Ultimately it will be the CVB board and staff’s challenge to define the organization’s goals,
develop appropriate business and marketing plans, measure its performance and demonstrate the
organization’s economic value both locally and to area corporations. That is why the selection of
a seasoned and qualified CVB staff will be so critical to its ultimate success.
OTHER CITIES WITH LODGING TAXES
Currently, 26 metro area communities have adopted a lodging tax. As seen below nearly all of
these communities have a room tax rate of at least 3%.
TWIN CITIES GREATER METROPOLITAN
VICINITY
Total Lodging
Tax Rate
Anoka 3%
Apple Valley 3%
Blaine 3%
Bloomington 7%
Brooklyn Center 6%
Brooklyn Park 3%
Burnsville 3%
Coon Rapids 3%
Eagan 3%
Fridley 3%
Ham Lake 3%
Hastings 2%
Inver Grove Heights 3%
Lakeville 3%
Maple Grove 3%
Minneapolis * 5.625%
Moundsview 3%
Richfield 3%
Roseville 3%
Shakopee 3%
Shoreview 3%
St. Paul **3% & 6%
Stillwater/Oakdale-2009 3%
Waconia 3%
* Minneapolis: 2.625% for lodging properties with more than 50 units, plus a 3% entertainment tax that applies to all lodging
accommodations
** St. Paul: 3% for lodging properties with less than 50 units; 6% for those with 50 or more units
NOTE: Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis & St. Paul all have special legislation to exceed the 3% lodging tax limit
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Based on a conservative estimate of revenues from a 3% lodging tax, the first full year budget for
the CVB is to be approximately $565,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. The intent behind the
formation of a CVB is that it would strengthen awareness of St. Louis Park as a convention and
visitor destination and stimulate additional economic activity within the community.
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator/Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The study process is proceeding in accordance with the written report
provided to the City Council at its June 14, 2010 study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2010 and is
also proposed for additional funding in 2011. At its June 14, 2010 study session, Council
received a written staff update on the proposed study of the possible opportunities associated
with the publicly-owned fiber optic network in the City.
The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit
only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road
construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with
appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are
known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively
inexpensive.
The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice,
data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8
years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use
of fiber for video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to
have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We
need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands.
The study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is what to do with the remaining
fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber
infrastructure should be expanded. The second area is around whether the City should consider
playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber
optic capabilities during new construction or major remodeling.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has now identified members of a task force to further define and propose the scope,
implementation, and outcomes of this study. Results of that effort would then be returned to
Council for review prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study.
The attached project plan identifies current task force members and other aspects of the study.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
We are hopeful that the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce will be able to appoint a member to
the task force, as they have been invited to do.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission will be updated on the status of this project at
its December 9 meeting.
It is expected that the task force will commence its meetings in January 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 and 2011 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be
accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: Fiber Optic Study Task Force Project Plan
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
City of St. Louis Park
Fiber Optic Study Task Force
Project Plan
Task Force Members:
• Bruce Browning, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission
• Toby Keeler, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission
• Scott Jensen, Park Nicollet Health Clinics
• Tom Marble, SLP Schools
• Kevin Pikkaraine, LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems)
• Clint Pires, CIO, City of St. Louis Park
• John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, City of St. Louis Park
• Lori Dreier, Police Lieutenant, City of St. Louis Park
• Laura Adler, Engineering Program Manager, City of St. Louis Park
• Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, City of St. Louis Park
• John Tilton, Chief Building Official, City of St. Louis Park
• Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, City of St. Louis Park
• TBD, Representing TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
Task Force Goals:
1. Mutual Understanding of the Background (Business Need / Opportunity)
2. Mutual Understanding of the Reasons for the Task Force
3. Mutual Understanding of Economic Development Questions We Are Asking and Why
(Project Benefits)
• Possible Uses / Expansion of Existing Fiber Infrastructure
• Possible Enabling Ordinances (requirements or incentives)
4. Identify Additional Background, Reasons, and Questions
5. Frame the Study Scope, Implementation, and Expected Outcomes (Project Approach)
6. Formulate the RFQ
7. Review Study Proposals / Interview Consultants
8. Recommend Consultant to City Manager / City Council
9. Monitor and Participate in the Study
10. Receive the Study and Recommendations
11. Present Study Results to Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council
Schedule:
January – September 2011
Budget:
$50,000 (from Cable TV Fund – subscriber franchise fees; not tax supported)
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
Task Force Structure:
1. Members
2. Chair and Vice Chair
3. Roles of Members to Achieve Goals
4. Meeting Schedule
Risks:
While there are numerous potential economic development benefits associated with this project,
it is important to identify some of the possible risks associated with it as well.
1. Not being able to adhere to the timeline or anticipated budget
2. Not asking the right questions in the study to properly determine economic development
or other opportunities
3. Impact of diversion from other major initiatives
4. Inability of a critical mass of task force members to actively participate
5. Inability to find the optimal consultant to address study questions
6. The study results miss key findings or provide unjustified recommendations
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Demolition of 3764 Wooddale Avenue, 5718 Goodrich Avenue and 5724 Goodrich Avenue –
Fire Station Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required. This report is provided for informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Construction of Fire Station No. 1 is planned to begin in the spring of 2011. Some site
preparation work can begin immediately to speed the construction process next year. The site
preparation work includes demolition of the three existing houses that the City purchased south
of Fire Station No. 1. Also, Xcel Energy has existing overhead service lines that need to be
rerouted to make way for the new building.
Demolition Information
City staff and Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson explored moving and/or salvaging the
houses with house movers, Habitat for Humanity, demolition contractors and others. Due to the
height of the houses, the movers were not interested in purchasing the houses to be moved off-
site. If the houses were moved somewhere nearby, there would need to be significant
improvements to the houses to bring them up to current codes. Upon adding those issues to the
current housing market conditions, it is economically impractical to move the houses to another
site. Habitat for Humanity has found that it does not work for them to move houses, because
they must hire someone to do the work and their organization saves most of its money by using
volunteer labor. Also, there was not any interest from demolition companies to salvage materials
for reuse.
The City has hired Veit & Company, Inc. to demolish the three houses at 3764 Wooddale
Avenue, 5718 Goodrich Avenue, and 5724 Goodrich Avenue. The contractor has started
removing asbestos from the houses and expects to complete the hazardous materials abatement
next week. Demolition is planned to begin on December 16, 2010 and to be complete by
December 23, 2010 (weather permitting).
Fire Department Training
The three houses to be demolished are very representative of the majority of St. Louis Park’s
housing stock. Therefore, the Fire Department views the houses as a unique and valuable
training opportunity. Veit scheduled nine days between the hazardous materials abatement and
the demolition when the Fire Department could potentially conduct training in the houses. As is
customary for such training exercises, the Fire Department will talk with neighbors to discuss
this proposal. The Fire Department has invited neighbors to a meeting on December 7 to discuss
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Demolition of 3764 Wooddale, 5718 Goodrich & 5724 Goodrich – Fire Station Project Page 2
the schedule and types of training it would like to do in the houses. A copy of the letter the Fire
Department has sent to neighbors is attached for your information.
Utilities
Xcel Energy will reroute the overhead power lines on the site over the winter. Staff is meeting
with Xcel next week to hopefully pin down the proposed plan and schedule for that work.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The demolition and utility relocation are part of the planned work scope for the fire stations
project and does not change the proposed budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Fire Department’s Letter dated December 1, 2010
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Demolition of 3764 Wooddale, 5718 Goodrich & 5724 Goodrich – Fire Station Project
Page 3
Special Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Demolition of 3764 Wooddale, 5718 Goodrich & 5724 Goodrich – Fire Station Project
Page 4
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of October 18, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Call for Public Hearing – Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District
EDA Resolution No. 10-20
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that the EDA is considering providing
financial assistance to Hardcoat Incorporated in order to facilitate Hardcoat’s purchase of
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2010
the former Flame Metals property through the City’s Construction Assistance Program
(CAP). He stated in order to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding, it is proposed that
the EDA create a TIF District that would generate $190,000 over the life of the TIF
District; in order to create the TIF District, the City Council is required to hold a public
hearing. He pointed out that the setting of a public hearing does not authorize or commit
the EDA to any financial assistance and the EDA will have an opportunity to consider the
precise amount of financial assistance when the redevelopment contract is brought before
it on December 20th. He noted that the CAP program is intended to stimulate
construction in the City so as to create or retain jobs and the CAP program provides
funding based on a number of criteria, including demonstrated need. The funding is
provided on a reimbursement basis and is structured as a forgivable loan provided the
building is held and properly maintained by owner for five years after project completion.
He stated that recent legislation allows the source of funds to come from existing TIF
Districts in the City, provided that construction commences no later than July 1st and
reimbursements are made no later than the end of 2011.
Commissioner Mavity stated that one of the key factors in moving forward with this
financial assistance is the creation of jobs in St. Louis Park and expressed support for the
financial assistance.
Commissioner Santa pointed out that Hardcoat currently operates its business in St. Louis
Park and the proposed financial assistance will allow Hardcoat to move to a larger
renovated building that is now empty and will enable Hardcoat to add employees.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-20 Requesting the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park Call for a
Public Hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1 and the Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District (an
Economic Development District).
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Omodt absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Purchase Agreement between Mary and Karl Johnson
and the EDA for 7015 Walker Street and authorize the President and Executive Director to
execute the documents necessary to complete the real estate transaction.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA desire to undertake the acquisition of 7015 Walker Street?
BACKGROUND:
At the May 10th Study Session, staff discussed the availability of 7015 Walker Street (former
Reynolds Welding Supply property) and the merits of the EDA potentially purchasing the
property. Upon discussion, it was the consensus of the EDA that staff should pursue a purchase
agreement for the subject property and conduct an environmental investigation of the site. To
that end, staff negotiated a purchase agreement and had an environmental investigation
performed.
At the June 14th Study Session staff provided a written update to the Council on efforts to acquire
the subject property. No objections were raised with proceeding and providing information on
the property’s environmental condition when the results of the Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment became available.
At the November 1st Study Session, the EDA’s environmental consultant (Chris Thompson,
AMEC Geomatrix) provided an explanation of the subject property’s environmental conditions.
In addition Sarah Sonsalla with Kennedy & Graven explained the EDA’s limited liability
exposure in acquiring the property. Staff also provided a recap on the status of the proposed
purchase agreement for the property. Upon discussion, it was the consensus of the EDA that
acquisition of the subject property should be pursued provided the property is entered into the
MPCA’s VIC program (so as to obtain a No Association and Off-Site Source determinations
from the contamination on the property) and that Kennedy & Graven provide the EDA with a
letter of opinion relative to the EDA’s liability for the environmental conditions on the property.
The VIC application has subsequently been filed with the MPCA and City staff is arranging a
meeting with MPCA staff to discuss the EDA’s plans for the property. In addition, Kennedy &
Graven prepared the requested letter of opinion (attached) explaining the protections afforded the
EDA from the contamination on the subject property.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
Why purchase the subject property?
The industrial building on the subject property is in poor condition and is structurally obsolete.
The primary reason for acquisition would be blight removal along the highly visible Highway 7
corridor. In conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the EDA has been actively redeveloping
this corridor between Wooddale and Louisiana Avenues. Acquiring the subject property would
be consistent with those efforts. A secondary reason for acquisition is that it may aid in the
property assemblage for the future Highway 7/Louisiana interchange. Currently, it does not
appear that the property is needed for that purpose but it is in very close proximity to the
northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange and, at the very least, could be used for project
staging. The subject property could also potentially be used for stormwater retention to aid
redevelopment efforts in the neighborhood to the north. If the property is not needed for either of
these purposes, it could be resold to a future redeveloper who had commercial plans for the
property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
As with other impacted properties the EDA has acquired, the EDA has entered the subject
property into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up Program (VIC) prior to
purchase in order to obtain a No Association (NA) determination to the identified releases (VOC,
Semi-VOC and metals) at the site as well as attempt to obtain an Off-site Source determination
for the groundwater impacts at the site that may be due to other contaminated properties in the
vicinity. These filings help separate the EDA from any responsibility for the environmental
problems present on the site. Applying to the VIC program provides liability protection to the
EDA statutorily available under the State of Minnesota Land Recycling Act.
What is the purchase price?
The purchase price now stands at $260,000 which reflects the $20,000 deduction for the cost of
the additional environmental investigation.
How was the purchase price determined?
The purchase price was negotiated. Based upon review of comparable land sales information
with the City Assessor the acquisition price of the subject property is considered reasonable and
below market. The current assessed value of the subject property is $495,500. Most of the
property’s value is in the land which is assessed at $404,000 or $20 per square foot due to the
property’s highway visibility.
Extraordinary Cost Summary
The building on the subject property is in poor condition and has an adverse visual impact from
both the neighborhood to the north and Highway 7 to the south. Consistent with the acquisition
of former American Inn property, it is recommended that upon acquisition, the building be
removed and the site be held (i.e., not address the underlying soil conditions) until the property’s
future use is more definitively determined. There are both short and long term costs associated
with the remedial actions proposed to be taken on the subject property.
The short term cost (which includes building demolition, restricted waste removal, and
regulatory submissions) has been estimated at approximately $65,000.
The cost of the long term remedial actions (estimated at approximately $292,500) would be
addressed through grant applications to DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County
when the property’s ultimate usage is determined. This is the same approach that was taken with
the purchase of the former American Inn property.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid through the Development Fund. In the event the
property is not needed for area stormwater improvements it could be resold to a future
redeveloper. Costs related to the building demolition, restrictive waste removal, as well as
regulatory submissions would also be paid for through the Development Fund. Grants would be
sought to address future clean up costs.
Purchase Agreement Terms
The following is a summary of the proposed Purchase Agreement between Mary and Karl
Johnson (“Seller”) and the EDA (“Buyer”).
1. Purchase Price and Terms
a. Purchase Price: The total Purchase Price for the Property is $260,000.00.
b. Terms:
(1): Earnest Money. The sum of One Dollar ($1.00) Earnest Money shall be
paid by the Buyer to the Seller.
(2): Balance Due Seller: Buyer agrees to pay by check or wire transfer on the
Closing Date the remaining Balance Due according to the terms of the
Purchase Agreement.
(3): Deed/Marketable Title: Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees
to deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable title to the Property
to Buyer.
2. Contingencies. Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property is contingent upon the
following:
a. Approval of this Purchase Agreement by Buyer’s governing body;
b. Buyer conducting environmental investigations on the Property and receiving
reports that are satisfactory to Buyer;
c. Confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) that the
Property is eligible and has been accepted into the MPCA Voluntary Investigation
and Cleanup (VIC) Program;
d. Sellers’ procurement of a Certificate of Property Maintenance from the City of St.
Louis Park’s Inspections Department prior to closing;
e Sellers’ removal of all personal property, junk and debris from the Property; and
f. Buyer’s determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 6 of this
Agreement.
(Note: It appears that all the above contingencies have been or will be met prior to closing.)
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
3. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes,
interest and penalties relating to the Property for the years prior to the year of closing.
Buyer agrees to pay taxes for the year following the year of closing and all taxes for years
thereafter. Seller and buyer shall prorate all taxes for the year of closing based on the
Closing Date. Seller shall pay all special assessments regarding the Property which are
levied or pending as of the Closing Date.
4. Closing Date. The date of closing will be on or before December 31, 2010.
5. Possession/Utilities
a. Possession. Sellers agree to deliver possession of the Property free of all personal
property, junk and debris to Buyer not later than the Closing Date.
b. Utilities. Sellers shall pay all utility charges, if any, prior to the Closing Date.
6. CLOSING COSTS/RECORDING FEES/DEED TAX. Sellers shall pay: (a) the cost
of title evidence, consisting of an abstract or title commitment evidencing marketable
title; (b) any transfer or deed taxes and any deferred taxes due as a result of this
transaction; (c) one-half of closing fees customarily charged by the title company; and (d)
any other operating costs of the Property up to the date of closing. Buyer shall pay: (a)
any environmental investigation costs; (b) costs of title insurance and endorsements; (3)
one-half of closing fees customarily charged by the title company. Each party shall pay
its respective real estate broker and attorneys’ fees.
Next Steps
Upon closing staff will seek to have the building removed and the site properly covered.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of the acquisition of 7015 Walker St. is $260,000. The EDA would incur approximately
$65,000 in additional costs related to building demolition and regulatory submissions. These
costs would be paid from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained properties as well as
promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: Resolution approving the Purchase Agreement
Purchase Agreement
Letter from Kennedy & Graven
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND MARY AND KARL JOHNSON.
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority has determined a need to exercise the powers of a housing and
redevelopment authority, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.090 to 469.108 ("EDA
Act"), and is currently administering Redevelopment Project No. 1 ("Redevelopment Project")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act").
1.02. Among the activities to be assisted by the Authority in the Redevelopment Project is
removal of a building that is structurally obsolete and in substantial disrepair in the City located at
7015 Walker St. and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”).
1.03. There has been presented before the Board a Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”)
setting forth the terms and conditions of the purchase of the Property between the Authority and the
Seller of the Property, Mary and Karl Johnson (“Seller”). The Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
1.04. The Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the execution thereof and
performance of the Authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its
residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The Agreement as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject
to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the
President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall
be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of
the Authority the Agreement and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the
Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority its obligations thereunder.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 6, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 6
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
EXHIBIT B
Purchase Agreement
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this _______ day of December, 2010,
by and between Mary Reynolds Johnson and Karl H. Johnson, husband and wife (“Sellers”) and
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body politic and corporate under
the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Buyer”).
1. PROPERTY. Sellers are the owners of property located at 7015 Walker Street, in the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A
(“Property”).
2. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. In consideration of and subject to the terms and provisions of
this Agreement, Buyer offers and agrees to purchase and Sellers agree to sell and hereby grant to
Buyer the exclusive right to purchase the Property and all improvements thereon, together with
all appurtenances. All fixtures located on the Property on the date of this Agreement are
included in the purchase of the Property.
3. PURCHASE PRICE FOR PROPERTY AND TERMS.
a. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is: Two Hundred
and Eighty Thousand and 00/100ths Dollars ($280,000.00)(“Purchase Price”).
b. TERMS:
1. EARNEST MONEY: The sum of One Dollar ($1.00) earnest money shall
be paid by Buyer to Sellers (“Earnest Money”).
2. ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS: Sellers have agreed to
contribute $20,000 towards the Buyer’s environmental investigations on
the Property. This amount shall be deducted from the Purchase Price.
3. BALANCE DUE SELLERS: Buyer agrees to pay by check or wire
transfer on the Closing Date any remaining Balance Due according to the
terms of this Agreement.
4. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by Buyer, Sellers
agree to execute and deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable fee
simple title to the Property to Buyer, free and clear of any mortgages, liens
or encumbrances other than matters created by or acceptable to Buyer,
subject only to the following exceptions:
i. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal
regulations;
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 7
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
ii. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of
Minnesota, if any; and
iii. Public utility and drainage easements of record which will not
interfere with Buyer’s intended use of the Property.
4. DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLERS. In addition to
the Warranty Deed required at paragraph 3B(3) above, Sellers shall deliver to Buyer at closing:
a. An affidavit from Sellers sufficient to remove any exception in Buyer’s policy of
title insurance for mechanics’ and materialmens’ liens and rights of parties in
possession;
b. A “bring-down” certificate, certifying that all of the warranties made by Sellers in
this Agreement remain true as of the Closing Date;
c. Affidavit of Sellers confirming that Sellers are not foreign persons within the
meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code;
d. Well disclosure certification, if required, or, if there is no well on the Property, the
Warranty Deed given pursuant to paragraph 3B(3) above must include the
following statement: “The Sellers certify that the Sellers do not know of any wells
on the described real property;”
e. Any notices, certificates, and affidavits regarding any private sewage systems,
underground storage tanks, and environmental conditions as may be required by
state or federal statutes, rules or regulations; and
f. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer’s title insurance company or
attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Sellers have
complied with the terms of this Purchase Agreement.
5. CONTINGENCIES. Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property is contingent upon the
following:
a. Approval of this Purchase Agreement by Buyer’s governing body;
b. Buyer conducting environmental investigations on the Property and receiving
reports that are satisfactory to Buyer;
c. Confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) that the
Property is eligible and has been accepted into the MPCA Voluntary Investigation
and Cleanup (VIC) Program;
d. Sellers’ procurement of a Certificate of Property Maintenance from the City of St.
Louis Park’s Inspections Department prior to closing;
e. Sellers’ removal of all personal property, junk and debris from the Property; and
f. Buyer’s determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 6 of this
Agreement.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 8
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
Buyer shall have until the Closing Date to remove the foregoing contingencies. These
contingencies are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer or its
attorney gives written notice to Sellers that all contingencies are duly satisfied or waived, Buyer
and Sellers shall proceed to close the transaction as contemplated herein.
If one or more of the contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived
by Buyer, this Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of Buyer, and Sellers
shall return the earnest money to Buyer, and Buyer and Sellers shall execute and deliver to each
other documentation effecting the termination of this Agreement. As a contingent Purchase
Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 559.21, et. seq.
6. TITLE EXAMINATION/CURING TITLE DEFECTS. Buyer shall, at its expense
and within a reasonable time after Sellers’ acceptance of this Agreement, obtain a commitment
for title insurance (“Commitment”) for the Property. Buyer shall have 10 business days after
receipt of the later of the commitment and executed Purchase Agreement to examine the same
and to deliver written objections to title, if any, to Sellers, or Buyer’s right to do so shall be
deemed waived. Sellers shall have until the Closing Date (or such later date as the parties may
agree upon) to make title marketable, at Sellers’ cost. In the event that title to the Property
cannot be made marketable or is not made marketable by Sellers by the Closing Date, then, this
Agreement may be terminated at the option of Buyer.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS. Buyer acknowledges that it has been
authorized by Sellers to enter the Property and conduct environmental investigations of the
Property consisting of a Phase I and Phase II study (including restrictive wastes).
Except for the conditions and information set forth in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Report dated October 2010 (“Phase I”), Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report dated
October 2010 (“Phase II”), asbestos survey and follow-up Site Assessment all prepared by
AMEC Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., Sellers warrant that:
a. The Property has not been used for production, storage, deposit or disposal of any
toxic or hazardous waste or substance, petroleum product or asbestos product
during the period of time Sellers have owned the Property;
b. Sellers have no knowledge or information of any fact which would indicate the
Property was used for production, storage, deposit or disposal of any toxic or
hazardous waste or substance, petroleum product or asbestos product prior to the
date the Property was conveyed to Sellers; and
c. That Sellers have no knowledge of any environmental release, investigation,
cleanup or closure relating to the Property.
8. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Sellers shall pay all real
estate taxes, interest and penalties, if any, relating to the Property for the years prior to the year
of closing. Provided that this transaction shall close as provided herein, Buyer agrees to pay
taxes for the year following the year of closing and all taxes for years thereafter. Sellers and
Buyer shall prorate all taxes for the year of closing based on the Closing Date. Sellers shall pay
all special assessments regarding the Property which are levied or pending as of the Closing
Date, including portions which would otherwise have been payable in future installments.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 9
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
9. CLOSING DATE. The date of closing shall be on or before December 31, 2010
(“Closing Date”). Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made at the offices of Buyer,
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 or at such other location as is mutually
agreed upon by the parties. All deliveries and notices to Buyer shall be made as provided in
Section 17 of this Agreement.
10. POSSESSION/UTILITIES.
a. Possession. Sellers agree to deliver possession of the Property free of all personal
property, junk and debris to Buyer not later than the Closing Date.
b. Utilities. Sellers shall pay all utility charges, if any, prior to the Closing Date.
11. SELLERS’ WARRANTIES. Sellers hereby represent and warrant to Buyer and Sellers
will represent and warrant to Buyer as of the Closing Date that:
a. Sewer and water. Sellers warrant that the Property is connected to City sewer
and City water.
b. Mechanics' Liens. Sellers warrant that, prior to the closing, Sellers shall pay in
full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished
within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with
construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the
Property.
c. Notices. Sellers warrant that they have not received any notice from any
governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in
connection with the Property, except if any violations are noted in the Certificate
of Property Maintenance. It is the Buyer’s intention to demolish the existing
building and Buyer will be responsible for any items the City of St. Louis Park’s
Inspections Department notes during the Certificate of Property Maintenance
inspection process.
d. Tenants. Sellers warrant that any leases of the Property have been terminated,
the Property is not now occupied by tenants and was not occupied by tenants at
the time Sellers first received Buyer’s Letter of Intent to purchase the Property.
In the event that any tenant comes forward and claims an interest in the Property
at the time of or following the purchase, Sellers agree to fully indemnify Buyer
for any and all costs associated with terminating such tenancy and for any and all
relocation assistance and benefits that may be due to such tenant together with
attorneys’ fees that Buyer would have to incur in connection with legal action
required to resolve any relocation assistance or benefits dispute with such tenant.
For purposes of this Agreement, “relocation assistance and benefits” shall have
the meanings ascribed to them by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 4601-4655 (the federal
URA) and the regulations implementing the federal URA, 49 C.F.R. Sections
24.1-24.603.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 10
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
e. Broker Commission. Sellers have utilized the services of a real estate broker in
connection with the transaction contemplated by this Purchase Agreement.
Sellers shall be responsible for compensating their real estate broker and paying
any commission due. Sellers agree to indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless
from the claims of any broker, real estate agent or similar party claiming through
Sellers.
f. Condemnation. Sellers warrant that there is no pending or, to the actual
knowledge of Sellers, threatened condemnation or similar proceeding affecting
the Property or any portion thereof, and Sellers have no actual knowledge that any
such action is contemplated.
g. Legal Proceedings. There are no legal actions, suits or other legal or
administrative proceedings, pending or threatened, that affect the Property or any
portion thereof, and Sellers have no knowledge that any such action is presently
contemplated.
h. Legal Capacity. Sellers have the legal capacity to enter into this Agreement.
Sellers have not filed, voluntarily or involuntarily, for bankruptcy relief within the
last year under the United States Bankruptcy Code, nor has any petition for
bankruptcy or receivership been filed against Sellers within the last year.
i. Methamphetamine Production. To the best of Sellers’ knowledge,
methamphetamine production has not occurred on the Property.
Sellers’ representations and warranties set forth in this paragraph shall be continuing and are
deemed to be material to Buyer’s execution of this Agreement and Buyer’s performance of its
obligations hereunder. All such representations and warranties shall be true and correct on or as
of the Closing Date with the same force and effect as if made at that time; and all of such
representations and warranties shall survive closing and any cancellation or termination of this
Agreement, and shall not be affected by any investigation, verification or approval by any part
hereto or by anyone on behalf of any party hereto. Sellers agree to defend, indemnify, and hold
Buyer harmless for, from and against any loss, costs, damages, expenses, obligations and
attorneys’ fees incurred should an assertion, claim, demand or cause of action be instituted, made
or taken, which is contrary to or inconsistent with the representations or warranties contained
herein.
12. CLOSING COSTS/RECORDING FEES/DEED TAX. Sellers shall pay: (a) the cost
of title evidence, consisting of an abstract or title commitment evidencing marketable title; (b)
any transfer or deed taxes and any deferred taxes due as a result of this transaction; (c) one-half
of closing fees customarily charged by the title company; and (d) any other operating costs of the
Property up to the date of closing. Buyer shall pay: (a) any environmental investigation costs;
(b) costs of title insurance and endorsements; (3) one-half of closing fees customarily charged by
the title company. Each party shall pay its respective real estate broker and attorneys’ fees.
13. INSPECTIONS. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its
employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying,
inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and
testing of groundwater monitoring wells, as Buyer shall elect. Buyer shall also be entitled to a
general walkthrough inspection within five days of the Closing Date.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 11
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
14. RISK OF LOSS. It there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof
and the Closing Date, for any reason including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act of God,
the risk of loss shall be on Sellers. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before
the Closing Date, this Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer’s option. At the request
of Buyer, Sellers agree to sign a cancellation of Purchase Agreement.
15. DEFAULT/REMEDIES. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Sellers have the right
to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such election to Buyer, which notice
shall specify the default. If Buyer fails to cure such default within 15 days of the date of such
notice, Sellers may terminate this Agreement and retain the Earnest Money as Sellers’ liquidated
damages, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement (and
retention of the Earnest Money) will be the sole remedies available to Sellers for such default by
Buyer, and Buyer will not be further liable for damages. If Sellers default under this Agreement,
Buyer shall have the right (i) to terminate this Agreement (in which case Buyer shall be entitled
to a refund of the Earnest Money), or (ii) to enforce and recover from Sellers specific
performance of this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement (and refund of the Earnest
Money), or the enforcement and recovery from Sellers of specific performance of this
Agreement, shall be the sole remedies available to Buyer for such default by Sellers, and Sellers
shall not be further liable for damages.
16. RELOCATION BENEFITS; INDEMNIFICATION. Sellers acknowledge that they
are not being displaced from the Property as a result of the transaction contemplated by this
Agreement and that they are not eligible for relocation assistance and benefits or in the event that
they are eligible for relocation assistance and benefits, that the Purchase Price includes
compensation for any and all relocation assistance and benefits for which they may be eligible.
The provisions of this paragraph shall survive closing of the transaction contemplated by this
Agreement.
17. NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be
given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same
is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in
the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and
addressed as follows:
SELLERS: Mary Reynolds Johnson and Karl H. Johnson
Reynolds Welding Supply Company
1728 North Riverfront Drive
Mankato, MN 56001
With a copy to:
Thomas A. Lelich, First Vice President
CB Richard Ellis Brokerage Services
4400 West 78th Street, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55435
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 12
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
BUYER: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Attn: Tom Harmening
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
With a copy to:
Sarah J. Sonsalla, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including exhibits attached hereto, and any
amendments hereto signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire agreement between Sellers
and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the
Property. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Sellers
and Buyer.
19. SURVIVAL. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or court decision to the
contrary, the provisions of this Agreement shall survive closing.
20. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their successors
and assigns.
(the remainder of this page intentionally left blank)
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 13
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date
and year above.
Buyer:
St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority
By: ________________________________
Its: President
By: ________________________________
Its: Executive Director
Sellers:
By: ________________________________
Mary Reynolds Johnson
By: ________________________________
Karl H. Johnson
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 14
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Property
Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Block 187, TOGETHER with adjoining ½ of vacated Republic
Avenue and alley; and that part of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 186, TOGETHER with adjoining ½
of vacated Republic Avenue lying Easterly of a right angle line drawn from the intersection of
the center line of said vacated Republic Avenue with the Southerly line of Walker Street to the
Northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7, all in Rearrangement of St. Louis
Park.
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street Page 15
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street Page 16
EDA Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street Page 17
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 25, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:35 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), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of
Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Park Superintendent (Mr. Beane), IT Manager (Ms. Nelson), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Jamie LaPray and Tom Miller, Safety in the Park representatives.
1. 2011 Budget, 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial
Management Plan (LRFMP)
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration. He
stated that the preliminary property tax levy of 4.88% adopted by Council in September includes
a significant amount of funds targeted for capital needs; final action on the property tax levy will
occur in December.
Mr. Swanson stated that the staff report includes information pertaining to the Enterprise,
Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects funds. He advised that while
Council does not formally adopt these budgets, staff felt it was important to provide Council with
a comprehensive picture of all the various funds in the City’s budget.
Councilmember Santa noted that several of the budgets appear to be under-funded.
Mr. Swanson advised that the Council will be asked to adopt a balanced budget for the General
and Park and Recreation Funds; the remaining funds will be covered by the Long Range
Financial Management Plan (LRFMP). He then presented an overview of the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and stated that the next five years include some of the most significant
construction projects in the City’s history, including construction of two fire stations. He advised
that the 2011-2015 CIP has a total of approximately $168 million in projects over the next five
years, with approximately $57 million representing City funds and the remainder coming from
external sources, some of which are guaranteed and some not.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the CIP includes City money for the Highway 7 and Louisiana
and/or Highway 100 projects.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Mr. Rardin explained that the Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave project is currently included in the
CIP and if that project goes forward, there is a minimum amount the City would be required to
participate in as required by the Met Council, or approximately $2.7 million. He noted that this
project is included in the City’s detailed planning documents and is shown as fully funded based
on the City obtaining additional federal or state funding of approximately $11 million. He added
that the proposed Highway 100 project would be part of the 2016 budget and is shown as
approximately $7 million of possible City cost; this possible project will continue to be evaluated
by staff over the next couple of years.
Councilmember Finkelstein reiterated his concern with respect to the State’s increasing budget
deficit and whether there are ways the City can earmark funds for specific projects.
Mr. Swanson stated that pursuant to new accounting rules, the City will be able to utilize five
different classifications for restricting or designating funds in its budget.
Mr. Rardin presented an overview of the Public Works CIP and explained that the public works
department has been inventorying every public works asset in the City and then determining
ownership and condition of those assets. Based on that, long term maintenance, rehabilitation,
and replacement plans are developed for every asset. He reviewed the priority status of various
projects within the department and noted that priorities are determined based on lifecycles of the
various asset components managed within the department. He discussed 2011 projects and stated
that some of the projects listed in the CIP include projects for which the City will receive outside
funding.
Mr. Beane presented an overview of the Parks and Recreation CIP and reviewed the priority
status of various projects within this department. He explained that improvements will be
completed to Northside Park in 2011; other 2011 projects include the Rec Center east arena
dehumidification and improvements at Westwood Hills. He stated that the City received grant
money in 2010 for replacement of ash trees and the City will need to determine funding sources
for tree replacement in future years, particularly if there is a large infestation of Emerald Ash
Borer.
Ms. Nelson presented an overview of the Technology CIP and reviewed the priority status of
various projects within the department, noting that ongoing hardware and software replacement
is essential for continuing to provide efficient service to the City’s customers. She discussed the
email archival and document management projects; these projects will be completed in 2012.
She also discussed the ongoing fiber conduit expansions and the current study being conducted
to have fiber throughout the City.
Mr. Harmening noted that the fiber conduit projects would be done as part of any streets projects
in the City, so that if a street is being torn up, the assumption is that fiber conduit would be
installed at the time the street is under construction.
Councilmember Ross requested an update regarding a potential partnership with the School
District as it relates to a Cable TV communication center.
Mr. Zwilling stated that this item is contained in the Cable TV CIP and the project has been
funded.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that Cable TV continues to show a decline in viewership
because more viewers are migrating to the internet.
Mr. Zwilling stated that the City’s franchise agreement runs through 2021 and noted that the City
has not yet seen revenues drop off significantly. He explained that all of the capital for Cable
TV is funded through franchise fees and the budget estimates were revised from a 3% growth to
a 1% growth in revenue from franchise fees. He stated that staff is considering consolidation of
some of the Cable TV channels for ease of use.
Mr. Harmening stated it appears there are major changes coming to the cable TV industry due to
other advances in technology, and staff will continue to monitor the industry and incorporate
appropriate changes into the CIP.
Mr. Heintz reviewed the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan and stated that based on
various assumptions, the LRFMP provides a snapshot of the City’s financial status projected out
to 2020. He discussed the Cable TV fund, Police and Fire Pension Fund, HRA Levy, Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund, Park Improvement Fund, Pavement Management Fund, Capital
Replacement Fund, Sewer, Solid Waste, Storm Water, and Water Utility Funds, Housing
Rehabilitation Fund, Development Fund, and Uninsured Loss Fund.
Mr. Harmening explained that the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund has resources
available that give the City the ability to redirect funds to those funds showing a deficit.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Council focus on those funds that do not appear to be
sustainable over the long haul and how that will impact the City’s tax levy in future years. She
expressed particular concern regarding the sustainability of the Park Improvement Fund, Capital
Replacement Fund, and the Development Fund.
Mr. Heintz discussed the Park Improvement Fund, noting that this fund includes an assumption
that the levy is 4.88% with no park dedication fees included in the balance due to the uncertain
nature of these fees. He added that this fund is showing a conservative positive fund balance.
Mr. Swanson explained that part of this is due to the loss of the Market Value Homestead Credit
and staff chose to leave out park dedication fees even though it is anticipated that the City will
receive some park dedication fees in the future.
Mr. Harmening stated that overall, the City is in good shape financially to fund all of its projects
over the next five years; after that, there will be challenges but over time, and with the movement
of dollars, the City will be able to fill those gaps and remain financially sustainable.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the assumptions are based on the preliminary tax levy of
4.88% earlier set by Council, but if the Council were to deviate from that amount, the
sustainability of these funds would be in further jeopardy.
Mr. Swanson presented the proposed tax levy options for 2011 and 2012, and stated that based
on a 4.88% tax levy in 2011, the estimated tax levy needed for 2012 would be 3.21%.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that one of the Council’s goals may be to have some level of
predictability and consistency for residents with their taxes. She indicated the 4.88% 2011 levy
assumes that it goes down the following year. She asked if there would be any advantage to
having a 4% tax levy in each of 2011 and 2012, which may feel more predictable to taxpayers.
Mr. Swanson replied that there is a possibility that levy limits will come back into play which
would limit the City’s ability to levy taxes. He added that revenues for capital would decrease
and long term projects would be underfunded.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her support for the 4.88% levy previously approved by
Council and noted that the actual increase to taxpayers on the City portion of their taxes is very
modest.
Mr. Harmening stated that taxpayers should not be surprised if their County property taxes go
up, even though the County levy is not increasing. He noted that because the values in St. Louis
Park have remained more stable than in other cities, the City’s portion of the County pie is larger
as it relates to fiscal disparities.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that staff prepared its assumptions based on information
received from the County and the County numbers changed after the Council approved its
preliminary tax levy. He expressed frustration that staff was not able to rely on the figures given
to it by the County in preparing its preliminary tax levy.
Mr. Swanson reviewed with the Council the impact to taxpayers of a 4.88% levy versus a 4.0%
levy.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Council has several options including reducing the amount of the
levy, reducing the amount of the levy associated with specific services, reducing the capital side
of the levy while maintaining City operations, or a combination thereof. He stated that based on
the assumption that service levels should remain the way they are today, and if Council chooses
to reduce the levy, reductions would appear on the capital side versus impacting any City
services.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that additional information be provided to Council with
respect to reducing the capital portion of the levy. He stated that consideration needs to be given
to the fact that residents are going to see increases in garbage service, water rates, and other fees.
Mr. Harmening agreed to provide Council with further information regarding a possible
reduction in the capital portion of the City’s levy, as well as potential impacts to homeowners
when coupled with franchise fee adjustments and utility increases.
2. Auditing Services
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that the City has contracted with Abdo, Eick
and Meyers, LLP, for the past six years and staff has been very satisfied with the services
provided by Abdo, Eick and Meyers. He indicated that typically, auditors are retained for three
or four year periods and the Council has the option of entering into a one year or four year
contract with Abdo, Eick and Meyers; alternatively, Council may direct staff to prepare a
Request for Proposals for auditing services.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Omodt asked if there is a best practice to provide guidance with respect to audit
services.
Mr. Swanson replied that the State Auditor provides no specific guidance on this question.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council has worked with Abdo, Eick and Meyers for six years and
it is important that the City not have an image that it is too close to its auditors and to maintain
the independent nature of the audit.
Councilmember Sanger agreed and stated she felt the City should send out Requests for
Proposals.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed and felt it was a good idea to switch auditors every four to six
years. He added that he has been impressed with the work performed by Abdo, Eick and
Meyers.
Mr. Harmening asked if Council would like to be involved in the interview process.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals for
auditing services. It was also the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to review the
responses to the Request for Proposals, conduct interviews of potential auditors, and provide a
recommendation to the City Council.
3. Freight Rail
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and explained that three freight rail studies are currently
underway, including two studies initiated by the County in response to the City’s July 6th
resolutions. He stated that the third study currently underway is the MNS Freight Rail Study,
funded by Mn/DOT and the County, and the purpose of this study is to determine what
improvements would be required if the TCW trains were to be routed to the MNS tracks, what
the potential impacts of this rerouting would be, and what mitigation is needed to address
negative impacts. He advised that the next PMT meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November
9th, and will include a presentation of a draft engineering concept for routing trains on the MNS
tracks; following this meeting and the next PMT meeting in mid-December, PMT members will
have an opportunity to review and consider the ideas presented on November 9th, and to review
those ideas with their neighborhoods. He stated that the goal of the December PMT meeting will
be to settle on the best approach and to define the concept plan to be evaluated through the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process. He reviewed staff’s proposed process for
analyzing and responding to the information contained in the studies, including a presentation to
the City Council by the County’s consultants on the RL Banks and 2009 TCWR study; these two
studies will likely be wrapped up in November and the County has indicated that its consultants
will be ready to make a presentation on November 29, 2010 at the joint City Council/School
Board meeting. He stated that the MNS study is anticipated to be completed in December or
January and the PMT process has been designed to obtain public input into that process directly.
He added that throughout this process, the City will use SEH Consultants to assist in evaluating
the rail studies.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that one of the studies is looking at the engineering and associated
costs on the Kenilworth route, while the PMT is looking at the engineering and cost options for
the MNS, and then there is the reassessment of the alternatives routes in the 2009 TCW Freight
Rail Realignment Study. She asked how the costs and engineering estimates in the MNS and
Kenilworth studies are comparable to the 2009 reassessment. She stated it seems duplicative, but
the results are coming to the Council at different times. She added that the information being
obtained through the PMT process has to feed into and has to be part of the bigger analysis.
Mr. Locke advised that while there were six alternatives in the 2009 study, the focus is really on
four options and the question that both the Kenilworth study and the 2009 reassessment are
attempting to answer comes from the Council’s policy question of whether there are other viable
alternatives beyond MNS. He indicated that the 2009 reassessment is intended to determine if
there are options worth exploring but this particular study does not have the wherewithal to go to
the same level of detail as the Kenilworth or MNS Study.
Councilmember Sanger stated that until the 2009 reassessment addresses the issues of
engineering costs and mitigation costs, it will not be possible to make an apples to apples
comparison to determine the most viable and cost effective route.
Mr. Locke stated that staff has conveyed these issues to the County and staff understands that the
County will go to the level of detail necessary to be able to understand the viability of the various
options. He added the question of viability is subjective and it will be important for the City to
work with its own railroad consultants to answer these questions from the City’s point of view.
Councilmember Mavity questioned how the City will be able to effectively evaluate the 2009
reassessment without having the benefit of the full PMT results.
Mr. Locke stated that the City will not be in a position to make a definitive statement by the time
of the November 29th meeting, but there will be a significant amount of information available at
that time. He added that as the studies are wrapped up, the City will have more definitive
information on which to make judgments. He noted that it is not realistic to expect that all of the
options will have complete design costs associated with them.
Councilmember Ross requested information regarding the City’s timeframe for analyzing the
information with the City’s consultants.
Mr. Locke replied that if the two County studies are presented to the City in November, the goal
will be to review the information presented and figure out the City’s direction by the end of the
year or early 2011, which coincides with the City’s receipt of the MNS study. He stated that it is
not clear at this time which agency will have overall responsibility for determining what happens
with freight rail. He added that it is important for the City to focus its efforts at this time on
reviewing the studies and determining what it wants to do going forward.
Councilmember Ross asked how the City can help in terms of mitigation and whether there are
things the City can do to aid in future mitigation to make sure that citizens are safe.
Mr. Locke stated that the City can advocate for and control some things, and the Council’s July
resolution laid out a number of things that need to be addressed if the MNS route is chosen.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt it was important to go forward with the PMT meeting
on November 9th. She also felt it was incumbent upon the City to take action to put some teeth
behind the policy statements adopted in the July resolutions and to take additional steps to
influence the process so that more of the mitigation measures are in fact seriously considered and
the associated costs fully evaluated. She suggested that the City give consideration to hiring a
lobbyist to assist the City in making sure the Council’s policy statements are implemented.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he needs to see more clarity regarding the timeline for
making decisions and to understand what powers the City has on these issues. He requested that
the City’s consultant meet with the Council before the meeting on November 29th.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Kenilworth study and the 2009 reassessment will be presented to
the Council and the School Board on November 29th; following that meeting, staff will work
with its consultants to further analyze those studies with the intention of coming back to the
Council with a proposed course of action, including input from the community.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the five-step approach as
outlined in the staff report.
Safety in the Park Presentation
Ms. LaPray stated that one of the things that appears to be missing is that nowhere in any of the
studies does the County recognize the unsuitability of the MNS line compared to the other lines.
She indicated that the MNS line is a physically different kind of railroad line and the line is
narrower, more crooked, and is a different grade than the other lines. She expressed concern that
none of these factors are being taken into consideration in the MNS study. She advised that they
asked for separated grade crossings and were told those types of crossings are not in the
preliminary study. She discussed Safety in the Park’s concerns in choosing a line with so many
inherent problems, and provided an example of the visibility problems on the MNS line. She
stated that she and other PMT members have felt they were being rushed and that there was not
enough time given to addressing their concerns. She asked the Council to assist them in making
sure that the process in place is easier to work with and to assist them with the timelines.
Councilmember Ross stated that she asked Commissioner Dorfman to ensure that there is an
appendix or attachment to the report that contains all of the comments received and to make sure
that everybody feels they have been heard.
Mr. Miller stated that Safety in the Park would like to request that the City Council formally
adopt a resolution requesting information from the County and/or the State with respect to how
decisions are going to be made, who will make those decisions, and an associated timeline for
those decisions.
Councilmember Mavity stated that due to the fluidity of the process, the City appears to have
some flexibility in defining the decision-making process.
Mr. Locke stated that the City has been informally asking these questions and proposed that the
City send a statement to the effect that the City would like to work with the County and Mn/DOT
to come up with a process for how decisions are made throughout the process.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Subject: Study Session Minutes October 25, 2010
Councilmember Sanger stated it will be important that the City not have the appearance that it is
part of the decision-making process if in fact the City does not have a voice in the final decision.
She indicated that the City can assist with community input but it should be clear that the City is
not making the ultimate decision.
Mayor Jacobs stated his agreement with assisting the County in the public input process and the
City’s commitment to encouraging as much public input as possible, but it needs to be clear that
the City is not governing where the trains will go.
Mr. Harmening suggested that staff prepare a letter to the County requesting clarification
regarding timelines and the decision-making process with respect to the MNS study.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt it would be better if the request to the County were in
the form of a Council resolution rather than a letter from staff. She requested that staff prepare a
resolution for Council review and to include in the resolution a request that the County outline all
of the criteria it will be using to make an informed choice regarding freight rail.
Mayor Jacobs asked staff to draft a letter to the County for Council review.
4. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 1 and November 8, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 1st and the
study session agenda for November 8th. He reviewed the proposed discussion items for
November 8th and requested Council input on prioritizing these items on the agenda.
Councilmember Ross requested that a future study session agenda include a discussion of the
City’s policy with respect to responsible parties, e.g., how it is determined when a resident is
responsible for tree removal.
Councilmember Sanger requested that this agenda item also include a discussion regarding right-
of-way and who is responsible for maintaining the City’s right-of-way.
Mr. Harmening agreed to send an email to the Council with a list of future agenda items so that
the Council can prioritize the items for staff.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. September 2010 Monthly Financial Report
7. Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September, 2010)
8. Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Update/Application from Hardcoat Inc.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt,
and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Facilities Superintendent (Mr. Altepeter),
Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Controller (Mr. Swanson), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes of October 18, 2010
Councilmember Mavity requested that the last sentence of the seventh paragraph on page
2 be revised to state “She asked if the City should to explore available programs to help
people pay these increased costs related to fee increases.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2010
Councilmember Santa requested that the first paragraph under item 6a on page 3 be
revised to add a sentence that states “She also indicated that the same staff and
procedures would remain the same with the change in ownership of Applebee’s.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 10-116 Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of
$10,653.00, for the Glenhurst Lift Station Project, City Project No. 2010-2300 -
Contract No. 28-10.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-117 releasing an agreement concerning special
assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 90-54 and 96-19.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-118 authorizing traffic controls at Zarthan Avenue &
West 34th Street and Resolution No. 10-119 Zarthan Avenue & Hamilton Street.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-120 authorizing the elimination of permit parking
restrictions in front of 2900 Blackstone Avenue, 4013 Raleigh Avenue, and 2935
Sumter Avenue.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 10-121 authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance
renewal for December 1, 2010 – November 30, 2011.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 10-132 approving acceptance of donation from Sam’s
Club in the amount of $2,000 for Holiday Programs.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 10-122 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 2700 Toledo Avenue South - P.I.D. 31-029-24-32-0060.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 10-123 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 8007 West 18th Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 06-
117-21-44-0001.
4i. Approval of Filing of Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, 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 5-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to appoint
Jenna Sheldon as a Youth Commissioner to the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission for the term expiring August 31, 2011.
The motion passed 5-0.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out that there are many other opportunities for the City’s
youth to serve on the City’s boards and commissions and added this is a great opportunity
for young adults to understand city government and to become involved.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree Removal/
Injection, Mowing, False Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous Charges
Resolution No, 10-124
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated that each of the customers involved in
this special assessment process were billed through the City’s regular process and the
invoices are now past due. He indicated that individual letters were mailed to the affected
property owners on October 1st advising them of the public hearing. He stated that for
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
2010, 1,634 letters were mailed representing a total delinquency of $743,000. He
indicated that as of close of business today, $209,000 in payments from 494 customers
was received, leaving $534,000 outstanding; all delinquencies as of 4:30 p.m. on Friday,
November 5, 2010, will be certified to the County for collection as part of the property
owner’s tax bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Pro Tem
Sanger closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-124 Levying Assessment and Reassessment for Delinquent Utility
Accounts, Tree Removal/Injection, False Alarm Fees and Other Miscellaneous Charges.
The motion passed 5-0.
6b. Public Hearing – First Reading of an Ordinance Providing for a Local
Lodging Tax
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. He stated that significant research and considerable
discussion has taken place with local stakeholders as well as the Twin West Chamber of
Commerce with respect to the formation of a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) for
the purpose of promoting St. Louis Park as a tourism destination. He indicated that the
primary revenue source for operating a CVB is a local lodging tax and the statute allows
a tax up to 3% of gross receipts from room rentals; the proposed ordinance would take
effect January 1, 2011. He added that pursuant to statute, 95% of the gross proceeds
must be used to fund a local convention and visitors bureau to promote the City as a
meeting or tourism destination.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing.
Mike Kottke, Director of Sales at the Doubletree Hotel, appeared before the City Council
and expressed his surprise that this tax was being pushed through. He stated that St. Louis
Park currently has a competitive advantage over other areas, including Minneapolis/St.
Paul and Bloomington, because of the lower tax rate. He stated he felt that the lodging tax
would represent a major disadvantage and that the proposed tax is wrong. He indicated
that the Twin West and Minnesota Chambers of Commerce already provide this service
and he did not feel the proposed CVB would generate any leads for their hotel and may
even result in lost revenue for the local hotels.
Councilmember Mavity asked Mr. Kottke if he was aware that the proposed CVB is
being established in collaboration with the Twin West Chamber of Commerce. She also
asked if he did not see any value in the creation of a CVB.
Mr. Kottke replied that he did not see any value in the CVB.
Bruce Nustad, President of Twin West Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the City
Council and expressed his thanks to the City for its efforts in creating a CVB. He stated
that Twin West is committed to working with the local hoteliers to resolve any questions
or concerns regarding the CVB.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it was his understanding that the majority of the local
hoteliers were supportive the proposed CVB, as well as the Twin West Chamber of
Commerce. He added it was also his understanding that a number of other communities,
including Burnsville, Roseville, Lakeville, Eagan and several northern suburbs have
formed a CVB.
Mr. Hunt replied that that was correct.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to
approve First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 to Add a New Article
Providing a Local Lodging Tax.
Councilmember Mavity stated that it would be helpful to receive any additional feedback
from Mr. Kottke or others from the Doubletree Hotel prior to the second reading.
The motion passed 5-0.
6c. Consolidated Public Hearing
(1) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 1 Resolution No. 10-125
(2) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 2 Resolution No. 10-126
(3) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 3 Resolution No. 10-127
(4) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 4 Resolution No. 10-128
(5) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 5 Resolution No. 10-129
(6) 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 6 Resolution No. 10-130
Mr. Altepeter presented the staff report and stated that Special Service Districts are
established to maintain the streetscape projects that the City has done for a number of
years. He explained that Special Service District No. 1 is located along Excelsior
Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Highway 100 north to Park Center Boulevard; the
2011 budget for this district is $126,672 with a service charge in the amount of $50,000.
He noted that this district is the largest service district in the City and requires snow
removal which varies year to year. He explained that each service district has a goal of a
50% fund balance.
Mr. Altepeter stated that Special Service District No. 2 is located along Excelsior
Boulevard from Monterey east to France Avenue; the 2011 budget for this district is
$46,534 with a service charge in the amount of $46,534. He noted that this service
district is a small district that got behind a couple of years ago and is now catching up.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
Mr. Altepeter stated that Special Service District No. 3 is located along Excelsior
Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive; the 2011 budget for this district is
$63,600 with a service charge in the amount of $42,898.
Mr. Altepeter stated that Special Service District No. 4 is located along Excelsior
Boulevard west of Highway 100 to Louisiana Avenue; the 2011 budget for this district is
$38,095 with a service charge in the amount of $11,827. He noted that only businesses
located in the completed portion of this streetscape are being charged in this district.
Mr. Altepeter stated that Special Service District No. 5 is located along Park Place
Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar Lake Road; the 2011 budget for this district is
$26,380 with a service charge in the amount of $15,000.
Mr. Altepeter stated that Special Service District No. 6 is located along West 36th Street
from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100; the 2011 budget for this district is $24,480 with
a service charge in the amount of $18,000. He noted that this is the first year that this
district has been fully operational, thus requiring an assessment to make sure a revenue
source is available in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Pro Tem
Sanger closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Resolution No. 10-125, No. 10-126, No. 10-127, No. 10-128, No. 10-129, and No. 10-
130, Approving 2011 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 6.
The motion passed 5-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2011 Employer Benefits Contribution
Resolution No. 10-131
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and stated that in 2010, the City had a zero
employer benefits contribution increase in benefits to help with the City’s budget issues.
She indicated that for 2011, it is recommended that the City’s benefits contribution be
increased $65 from $750 to $815 per month. She advised that the City’s health insurance
premiums with Blue Cross/Blue Shield will increase 17% for 2011, which is less than
expected. She indicated the City’s dental insurance rates will increase 3% in 2011, there
will be no increase in life insurance rates, and the long term care insurance rates will
remain the same in 2011.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 10-131 Establishing 2011 Employer Benefits Contribution.
The motion passed 5-0.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
8b. 2nd Reading – Franchise Fee Ordinance Amendments
Ordinance Nos. 2394-10 and 2395-10
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and noted that typically second readings are
approved under the Council’s Consent Agenda; however, in this case, there were some
tweaks to the language required by Xcel Energy that require the City to state it does not
charge additional permit fees and the ordinance has been corrected to match the franchise
fee agreement. She stated there was also an additional housekeeping correction made to
the ordinance on page 2; Xcel Energy requested that the list of customer classifications
and amounts charged per month be included in the City’s ordinance. She noted that this
does not change the fee allocation and the amounts charged remain the same from the
first reading.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the franchise fees are used to fund the City’s
pavement management fund and not for anything else.
Mr. Swanson replied that this is correct. He added that the proposed fees are in line with
what other cities charge.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that this is the first time that the City’s franchise fees have
been raised since being instituted eight or nine years ago.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2394-10 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 motion passed 5-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2395-10 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 motion passed 5-0.
8c. West End Apartments Parkland and Trail Dedication
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and stated that earlier this year the City made a
zoning amendment and changes to the redevelopment contracts for the West End to allow
the proposed apartment project to move forward. He indicated that the proposed
apartment project sits within the West End development, which paid the parkland and
trail dedication as part of the original development. He explained that the parkland
dedication fee for an apartment building is higher than for the development originally
envisioned for this site and staff is proposing to modify the amount of the parkland and
trail dedication fee by reducing the fee to be consistent with the original formula applied
to this project, resulting in an additional parkland fee of $80,500 for the apartment
project. He stated that based on the unique environment created at the West End coupled
with the level of amenities and public improvements included in the West End
development, staff feels the reduction is appropriate. He then introduced Chris Culp,
developer of the West End Apartments.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
Councilmember Mavity noted that this item was considered by the Park Commission and
there was some disagreement among the Commissioners regarding the approach the City
should take on this matter.
Mr. Locke acknowledged that the Park Commission voted 4-2 in favor of a strict
application of the parkland dedication fee rather than the proposed $80,500 amount. He
stated that the Park Commission felt it was their obligation to take a stance that they
should get the largest fee possible; there was also concern expressed about setting a
precedent for similar situations in the future. He stated that each project represents a
unique situation, especially with respect to redevelopment projects, and each project has a
different final result based on the type of amenities included in the project. He indicated
that in this case, staff used the same rationale that was used for the rest of the West End
redevelopment project and applied the same standards as it did for the rest of the project.
Councilmember Mavity stated she felt that this was a unique situation in terms of what is
being done at the West End and expressed her support for the proposed parkland
dedication fee of $80,500. She added that it is important to recognize the valuable input
of the Park Commission members and to acknowledge their thinking on this issue.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that while the developer has met the DORA
requirements for the apartment project, those components will not generally be available
to the general public. He stated he did not feel that this project met the same criteria as
the rest of the West End project and a reduction of the parkland dedication fee does not
appear to be justified.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein as well as the Park
Commission. She stated that the reason for parkland dedication fees is to promote the
development of parks and open space for public recreation purposes. She acknowledged
that there are a lot of amenities at the West End, but they are not park amenities. She
expressed concern that the proposed apartment building will not have a lot of green space
around it and stated that she was not in support of reducing the parkland dedication fee
for the apartment building project.
Councilmember Mavity noted that there will be additional park or green space as part of
the overall development that the City has not yet seen.
Councilmember Omodt reminded Council that when the City first started looking at the
West End project, it was determined that there would be a total package of elements built
over time, without trying to tag one element of the project with all of the green space
requirements. He stated that the site has a community room, trail spaces, green areas, and
ponding and the City has been proactive in making sure that the overall vision for the
project is very open without being a city park, and that the project contains all of the
amenities that the City required. He added that he felt that the proposed parkland
dedication fee of $80,500 was fair.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Omodt and stated that the apartment
building is part of the larger West End development and has been in process for a long
time. She acknowledged that the apartment project represents a change for this site but
did not believe that this developer should be penalized in any way.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Subject: City Council Minutes November 1, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
an additional parkland and trail dedication fee of $80,500 for the West End Apartments
site at 5310 West 16th Street.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if the proposed parkland dedication fee of $80,500
represents an amount that was previously negotiated with the developer.
Mr. Locke explained that the agreement that originally came to Council in 2007 to begin
the West End project included $917,000 in parkland dedication fees, which was half of
what a strict application of the standards would require, and $46,000 of this amount was
applied to this site. He stated that if the same standard was applied to the apartment site,
the additional fee not already received would be an additional $80,500.
Mr. Chris Culp, developer of the West End Apartments, appeared before the City Council
and explained that when he began discussions with Duke Realty, the former owner and
master developer of West End, he was informed that all parkland fees had been paid for
the entire site. He stated that as his project moved through the rezoning and approval
process, an additional parkland dedication fee of $160,000 caught him by surprise. He
indicated that he worked with staff and reached agreement on the parkland dedication fee
for this project of $80,500.
Mr. Locke agreed with Mr. Culp’s understanding that Duke Realty believed it had taken
responsibility for all of the park dedication fees for all the sites on the West End. He
indicated that the City’s rationale for the 50% reduction is intended to be consistent with
the standard applied for the previous West End project approvals.
The motion passed 4-1(Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Mr. Harmening reminded residents to vote tomorrow. He stated the polls are open at 7:00
a.m. and if residents are unsure of their precinct location or have questions, they can go to
the City’s website, www.stlouispark.org, or contact the City Clerk’s office at 952-924-
2500.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 8, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 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), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Organizational
Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Michael Kelner, Owner, Hardcoat Incorporated.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 15 and November 22, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 15th and the
proposed study session agenda for November 22nd.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the discussion regarding the former Bikemasters property
include a discussion regarding how freight rail may or may not impact economic development in
this particular area.
2. Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and related CAP application from Hardcoat. He explained
that Hardcoat (currently located at 7300 West Lake Street) is proposing to purchase the former
Flame Metals property across the street, renovate the building, and relocate its business there.
He stated that once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will occupy approx 25,000 square feet
of the 33,000 square foot building, with another 10,000 square feet of space being leased to a
complementary business. This space will also provide future expansion space for Hardcoat. He
indicated that the property is currently valued at approximately $1.1 million and it is estimated
that upon renovation, the estimated market value will be approximately $2.6 million. He stated
that the anticipated cost to renovate the building is estimated at $1.4 million and Hardcoat has
applied for up to $420,000 under the City’s CAP program, which represents approximately 1/3
of renovation costs. He explained that the EDA/Council may wish to consider creating an
Economic Development TIF District to allow the EDA to pay itself approximately $190,000 over
the life of the TIF District. The City would provide funds to Hardcoat up front on a
reimbursement basis and as a forgivable loan provided Hardcoat stays and maintains the property
for over five years, at which time the loan would be forgiven. He added Hardcoat expects to
employ an additional 6-25 workers over the next five years as a result of the proposed project.
He then introduced Michael Kelner, owner of Hardcoat.
Mr. Kelner provided a brief history of Hardcoat and his ownership of the company. He stated
that the company’s current location does not provide enough space for it to continue to grow and
the relocation provides an opportunity to improve and expand the company’s operations.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
Councilmember Ross requested information regarding any environmental issues with the
company’s operations.
Mr. Kelner stated that the City inspects the company on a monthly basis and performs sample
water testing. He added the company does not have any offset products that are sent into the
City’s water supply and much of what they do is pH tested and any hazardous materials are
shipped offsite. He stated that the upgraded system being put into the new building will take out
and remove all contaminants, including aluminum. He presented drawings of the proposed
building and stated they will issue a permanent easement to the City for the walkways and
setbacks. He advised that the renovation plans for the inside of the building will allow Hardcoat
to occupy 14,000 square feet of production area, all masking areas will be separated, and will
include male/female locker rooms, storage rooms, a break room area upstairs for employees, and
an expandable office space.
Councilmember Sanger applauded Hardcoat’s efforts in growing its business and its plans to
renovate the former Flame Metals property. She requested further information regarding the
anticipated job creation.
Mr. Kelner explained that Hardcoat projects to add additional 6-25 jobs with a starting salary of
approximately $25,000 per year up to $60,000 per year for quality manager positions. He stated
that the racker positions and specialized masking positions have a starting salary of $11-$12 per
hour. He added that the company currently has a 401k plan with a 5% match, dental insurance,
and a paid time off program. He is also currently investigating the addition of a medical
insurance program.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern that this request represents a significant amount
of the monies available under the City’s CAP program and would be used to create
approximately six new jobs paying $10-$12 per hour. He stated when the CAP program was
established, Council limited the projects to $250,000 unless it was determined that the project
met all of the City’s criteria. He indicated that he felt this was a good project and wanted to
support it, but had some reservations about the amount of the funding request and whether the
project meets the goals of the CAP program. He added that there is also no commitment from
Hardcoat that it will add six additional positions.
Mr. Hunt pointed out that the creation of the TIF District would bring the amount of the funding
request down approximately $200,000. He stated that it is important to keep in mind that the
substantial renovations to the building will significantly increase the value of the property. He
added that the job component is only one of eight objectives listed within the City’s CAP
program and this request provides an opportunity for the City to assist a small business and help
it to grow and become more prosperous. He noted that the proposed project in fact met the goals
of the CAP program.
Mr. Kelner stated that Hardcoat has added six positions in the last three years and the goal will
be to add not just six additional positions but as many as 25 based on the kinds of work the
company can attract over the next 3-4 years.
Mr. Hunt discussed the easement on the Flame Metals property and stated that Hardcoat will
dedicate a portion of this back to the City. He stated that the planned improvements to this area
will provide a much more attractive walkway.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
Councilmember Santa asked if any neighborhood meetings have been planned.
Mr. Hunt replied that if Council supports this project, a neighborhood meeting will be scheduled
and drawings will be available for viewing. Councilmember Santa recommended that the
neighborhood meeting include a drawing of the back side of the building since this is what the
neighborhood sees.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the company’s relocation will result in any vibration issues
because of the building’s close proximity to the train tracks.
Mr. Kelner replied that he did not believe there would be any vibration issues at this location.
Mr. Hunt advised that current TIF District legislation provides that any project must be started by
July of 2011 and no reimbursements can be made beyond December 31, 2011.
Mr. Kelner stated that current plans include acquisition of the property in December and
construction to begin sometime in January 2011 with a completion date in July 2011.
It was the consensus of the EDA/City Council to support Hardcoat’s application for up to
$420,000 in financial assistance through the CAP program and the potential creation of an
Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with the project.
Mr. Hunt provided a brief summary of the Bikemasters CAP application for approximately
$70,000 in financial assistance, representing approximately one-third of renovation costs, which
will be used for energy efficient HVAC equipment.
3. Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
This item was postponed on the agenda.
4. Process for Community Input on Environment
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that based on Council’s discussion in
September, questioned were raised about the need for some type of venue for the community to
be able to provide ideas, input, and feedback on environmental related issues, initiatives, and/or
policies.
Ms. Gothberg then facilitated a discussion regarding Council’s interest in gaining input from the
community on environmental issues.
Councilmember Mavity expressed her appreciation to staff for the helpful information that
demonstrates the breadth of what the City is currently doing as it relates to environmental issues.
She stated that she would like see something that promotes resident’s ability to communicate
information in an interactive fashion so that they can share ideas and information with one
another. She added that a key aspect is not that the City is giving information out or people
giving information to the City, but that is interactive in order for people to learn from one
another. She indicated she did not feel that a permanent structure should be put in place, but
rather something more fluid that allows residents to take ownership of the process. She suggested
creating an open forum where meetings are scheduled to discuss a specific topic.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
Councilmember Ross stated she felt it was important to have multiple ways of communicating
with the City’s various audiences and expressed support for use of social media as well as a
venue where people can come and exchange ideas, etc.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the City has done a lot of good work on environmental
protection types of projects and the concern that was raised earlier is that there are a lot of
residents who are making suggestions and asking questions, but this appears to essentially be one
way communication and does not involve residents talking to each other. She indicated that the
Vision process includes a strategic goal for environmental issues and an interest that people have
in talking to each other about these issues. She noted that there was a suggestion to form a
temporary task force of residents and to task them with the question of figuring out the different
ways the City can get community members talking with each other and the Council and
providing ideas and recommendations about good projects for the City to consider. She added
this could be akin to the way the Police Advisory Commission was formed.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about forming a task force and felt it was
important to keep in mind the overlapping work of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission with respect to environmental issues. He also expressed concern about the
additional burden a task force may have on City staff.
Councilmember Santa acknowledged Councilmember Finkelstein’s remarks and stated that the
City currently enjoys the significant expertise of staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and the Planning Commission as it relates to the environment and it will be important to utilize
that expertise in this process. She noted that people want to be able to talk to each other about
issues and there should be a place where people can access a clearinghouse for information,
while at the same time, letting people know what the City is doing and finding a way to
piggyback on that.
Councilmember Omodt stated that there are chat boards available for this type of information
sharing. He indicated he did not feel the City should put itself in the middle of this because it is
not productive and people may assume that the City will agree to spend money on their ideas.
He stated he would be in favor of utilizing some survey questions to gain input from residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she was interested in finding a way to jumpstart the
communication process for residents and to at least provide a venue for people to come together
and talk about environmental issues.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that the City should use the expertise currently available to it and that there
is currently no central clearinghouse for residents to discuss environmental issues. He supported
the idea of hosting one or more meetings to discuss a specific topic and stated the City’s website
should also include information about what the City is currently doing as it relates to the
environment.
Councilmember Sanger stated that there is a lot to be gained by asking people for their input and
she would like to see a more structured way for finding out what is on people’s minds. She felt it
was important to invite people to comment on their perspectives on what the City can do better.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Vision process and strategic direction can be revisited if Council
desires to have a venue for a community dialogue. He indicated it will be very important to
manage community expectations and suggested extending the work of the Vision process by
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
convening an open forum-type meeting for residents. He added that a Council discussion would
also have to take place to discuss staffing implications.
Councilmember Omodt suggested that if there was consideration of an open-forum on the
environment, we should consider doing the open-forum for all four areas of Vision. They are all
important and we should check-back on all of them.
Mayor Jacobs noted that one of the things that Council promised as part of the Vision process
was to periodically check back with residents and let them know what the City and Council are
doing. He suggested this check-in could be made part of a larger community celebration.
Ms. Gothberg summarized Council’s discussion and stated the Council is desirous of utilizing a
myriad of ways of providing information on environmental issues to the public and should
provide a means for the City to hear from the public and vice versa, as well as a means for
interactive dialogue. She indicated that this information should include what has been done and
should be transmitted in a variety of ways, including cable television. She stated that Council
would also like some type of one-time public gathering in order to check in with residents on the
four areas of Vision. She noted that this information will be presented in a way that people
understand that the City and Council want to hear ideas and that does not provide any promise
that the City is going to do whatever is suggested, because it is important to respect staff and
financial considerations.
Mr. Harmening agreed that staff will prepare a recommendation for Council consideration.
5. Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and advised that Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth,
Rochester, Edina, and Maplewood currently have a registration program for domestic partners.
She noted that many cities ask their Human Rights Commission to review and make a
recommendation to Council.
Councilmember Sanger stated that a voluntary registration program will be useful for non-
traditional couples because it will provide documentation that substantiates their relationship,
particularly in a situation where one partner is in the hospital. She added that this type of
program will also serve to enhance St. Louis Park as a welcoming community, as previously
discussed by Council and the Human Rights Commission.
Councilmember Ross expressed support for a voluntary registration program, but was concerned
that the state legislature has this topic on its agenda and it may be prudent to wait and see what
the legislature does before taking formal Council action.
Councilmember Mavity stated if the City takes action on this now, it will send a clear message to
the legislature and to the general public on where the City stands on this issue. She agreed that a
voluntary registration program would enhance the City as a welcoming community and
instituting this type of program will be timely, given the creation of the Convention and Visitors
Bureau. She requested that if this topic is forwarded to the Human Rights Commission, that they
be given a timeframe in which to make a recommendation to Council.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes November 8, 2010
Councilmember Omodt suggested that the City Attorney or the League of Minnesota Cities be
asked to provide a legal opinion on the legislature’s pending consideration of the issue.
Councilmember Sanger felt that if several communities pass this type of ordinance, it will serve
to strengthen the overall argument that it is important to protect family backgrounds.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to forward this issue to the Human Rights
Commission for consideration and have them make a recommendation to the Council. It was
also the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to concurrently obtain a legal opinion on
this issue.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity provided an update on the SW LRT/Community Works Committee,
whose work is focused on land use around the light rail stations and transit-oriented development
along the route. She reported that the first three meetings included representatives from each of
the cities along the light rail route and discussion centered on the planning effort. She stated the
meetings have all been held in St. Louis Park She stated that the committee is asking for a
financial contribution from all of the municipalities along the light rail line, ranging from $4,000-
$6,000 to as high as $10,000-$12,000 for this year.
Mr. Harmening advised that the community works process is leading the effort to have all of the
communities in the County and other stakeholders work together to maximize the public and
private investment of the system being built, and to work together on land use, redevelopment,
and the infrastructure around the stations as a whole. He stated that the community works
process needs to staff this planning effort, and that is why each city is being asked to contribute
toward the cost of that planning.
Councilmember Mavity stated that on Wednesday, November 10th, she will attend an all day tour
of the Hiawatha and Central Corridor lines.
Mr. Harmening advised that the mayors of all cities along the light rail corridor, including Mayor
Jacobs, have been asked to sit on a Met Council Policy Advisory Committee with respect to the
construction of the light rail; Council will be asked to take formal action on this appointment on
November 15th.
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. 2011 City-wide Property Maintenance Evaluation of One and Two Single Family
Detached Properties
8. Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
9. Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
10. Update on Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:36
p.m.), Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Senior
Planner (Mr. Walther), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Controller (Mr. Swanson),
Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Michael Clark (DLR Group KKE), Brian Hook and Pat Sims (Kraus-Anderson)
1. Fire Stations Project Update
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and introduced Michael Clark from DLR Group KKE,
Brian Hook and Pat Sims from Kraus-Anderson.
Mr. Clark provided an update on the design of the two fire station designs and advised that
changes to Fire Station No. 1 include reorganization of the parking area on the north end of the
site pursuant to Council suggestion in order to better utilize this area. He stated that the northerly
property line will be replatted to make better use of this area as well as vacating the excess right-
of-way from Oxford Street. He explained that landscaping changes are planned to the south end
of the site following meetings with the neighborhood and include the addition of a berm that will
serve to block headlights from the aprons; other changes include some detailing of the south side
of the building wall to bring more character to this end of the building. He added that eight bays
are now shown on the drawings pursuant to Council direction, as well as the City records storage
space on the second floor above the small apparatus bay. He then presented the planned design
motifs planned for Fire Station No. 1.
Mr. Clark discussed the proposed changes to Fire Station No. 2 and explained that this station
will be a drive through facility, using only one entrance and one exit with fire trucks pulling out
onto Louisiana Avenue and proceeding in either direction. He added that the drawings for Fire
Station No. 2 now include four bays.
Councilmember Ross expressed concern about traffic backing up on Louisiana Avenue in the
vicinity of the fire station and requested that signage or a light be installed to prevent cars from
blocking the fire station.
Chief Stemmer stated that staff has been working with the traffic engineers from SRF Consulting
Group regarding this issue and noted that the fire station has been moved to the north to alleviate
some of the traffic concerns; discussion has also taken place regarding the possible installation of
a light in this area.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 15, 2010
Mr. Clark discussed the southerly property line and advised that the City is currently negotiating
with the owner of the Walgreen’s property about changing the property line in order to
effectively use all of the property for everybody’s best interests. He stated that all of this work is
being coordinated with the park project.
Mr. Clark then presented the analysis conducted on the use of a geothermal system for the two
fire stations. He stated that the mechanical engineer for the project, Bonestroo, performed an
energy modeling analysis using several scenarios, including a partial geothermal system for the
administration portions of the building and radiant heat for the apparatus bays, a high efficiency
traditional system, and a full geothermal system for the entire building. He advised that the
results of the modeling showed that a high efficiency traditional system is a more cost effective
solution for the project than using geothermal.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the costs for natural gas were projected into the future when the
analysis was prepared. She stated that both of these are limited natural resources whose costs
will only increase exponentially.
Mr. Clark replied that a discussion took place with CenterPoint Energy regarding how to factor
in increased natural gas costs versus electrical power and CenterPoint advised that the industry
standard is for electric and gas costs to typically follow each other.
Councilmember Sanger requested information on the payback if geothermal is used.
Mr. Clark stated that you still have to have a power source running the system, whether it is gas
or electric. He indicated when doing the energy analysis, a comparison needs to be done of the
amount of electricity used in a geothermal system versus the amount of natural gas used to create
heat in another system. He advised that there is no payback because upon closer review, a small
portion of the building is being heated and cooled, and a geothermal system works well only in a
cooling mode. He stated the apparatus bays will not be air conditioned and these bays account
for more than half of the buildings so there will not be any savings to offset costs. He added
there are also higher maintenance costs to a geothermal system compared to a traditional system.
Councilmember Mavity asked if there is any added value to the overall carbon footprint that a
geothermal system has versus a traditional system.
Mr. Clark replied that they have been working with Bonestroo on energy modeling of different
systems and to perform a simple cost payback analysis that looks at the financial costs and output
versus what you get back, but the analysis did not include a review of environmental costs.
Mr. Harmening stated that geothermal has been tested and proven to be a valid approach that has
payback benefits, but not with a building like this because a good portion of the building is not
being cooled.
Councilmember Santa stated that the City should remain cognizant of the soil issues which could
become more complicated and more costly if a geothermal system is utilized.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with a high efficiency boiler
system, instead of geothermal, at both fire stations.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 15, 2010
Mr. Clark reported that the Fire Stations Working Group has also focused its efforts on obtaining
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEED)
certification for the fire stations in order to meet the City’s goals and sustainability initiatives.
He presented a LEED project checklist and advised that based on current assumptions, the
project would qualify for 56 total points, resulting in Silver LEED certification. He stated that
LEED certification would provide the City with a third party verification of the City’s
achievement of a certain level of sustainability. He added that the cost estimate for pursuing
LEED certification is approximately $69,000 for both stations.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that regardless of whether LEED certification is obtained, the City is
building two environmentally-sound buildings.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that while he appreciated the idea of obtaining LEED
certification, the cost to obtain certification is significant. He stated the City and the Council are
expected to be good fiscal stewards of taxpayer money and felt it was more important to build
environmentally-sound buildings but to forego LEED certification in light of the cost.
Councilmember Sanger agreed and added that staff could simply write a story about the fire
stations project and that addresses the City’s green building policy.
It was the consensus of the City Council to not pursue LEED certification for Fire Station No. 1
or Fire Station No. 2.
Mr. Clark presented the second construction cost estimate prepared by Faithful & Gould and
stated that the results confirm that the fire station designs are on budget at approximately $15.5
million.
Mr. Hook added that the cost estimate will be reduced by approximately $150,000 due to the use
of a traditional boiler system.
Mr. Walther discussed the ongoing work with the neighborhoods and stated that staff is currently
working with one neighbor regarding the north exit drive at Fire Station No. 2. He indicated that
refinements continue to be made to the building’s landscaping and lighting on the south side. He
stated if Council is comfortable with the proposed designs, staff will commence with the
construction drawing phase and formal application phase for the zoning approval. He indicated
that the issue of two-way traffic on Oxford Street will be addressed later, but the overall plans
are not impacted either way as it relates to Oxford Street. He advised that it is anticipated that
construction will commence on May 1st at one or both sites and Kraus-Anderson estimates it will
take approximately twelve months to complete both stations. He added that along with the
economies of scale in bidding the two projects together, it also reduces the operational disruption
for the fire stations.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed into the Construction
Documents phase of the fire stations project.
The City Council Special Study Session recessed at 7:25 p.m.
The City Council Special Study Session reconvened at 8:59 p.m.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 15, 2010
2. Utility Rates – 2011
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and the City’s water utility rate history. She advised that
based on Council’s previous discussion, staff focused on a phased-in option that adjusts water
rates over a ten year period and that provides for bonding. This approach also recommends that
during year five the City review the phase-in plan and make any adjustments to the phase-in plan
based on business needs. She indicated that under this scenario, usage fees will increase
approximately 3.3% annually. A typical quarterly billing was presented showing a comparison of
existing and proposed rates and showing the proposed increase.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that the new rate approach does not create more revenue than what is
needed over ten years or what has been projected as being needed in the past; the new rate
approach creates the required revenue in a different way by shifting to a fixed charge approach.
He added that the phased-in approach does contribute to a need for more bonding.
Council discussed top users of water in the City and how the move to a fixed charge will provide
a more stable water fund.
Ms. Gohman indicated that the costs included in the estimates represent capital items such as
meter replacement and reconstruction, but do not include service line ownership by the City.
It was the consensus of the City Council to have a further study session with Public Works
regarding the policy of ownership of water service lines.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt a phased-in approach over ten years was too long and
preferred using a shorter period of time. She asked that the Council consider increasing the fixed
rate portion of the rates to help address some of the City’s capital costs that impact everybody
regardless of the amount of water they use. She stated that fixed rates only cover administrative
costs and she preferred to increase the fixed rate a little more so that the City can borrow less.
She noted that the City did not raise rates for quite a long time.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about raising rates too dramatically and too quickly
in the early years. She stated the City has some very cost effective financing tools available
because of the current economy. She added she has concerns about putting too much on
residents at this particular time.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Council will have an opportunity to discuss rates again each year
and adjustments can be made at that time.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with the recommended phased-
in option for water rates.
Ms. Gohman reviewed the current and proposed sewer, storm drainage, and solid waste rates.
She stated that the information contained in the report is based on the study conducted by Ehlers
last year. She presented an estimated quarterly utility bill for water, sewer, storm drainage, and
solid waste, noting that the phased-in option projects with approximately 8.04% overall increase.
It was the consensus of the City Council to approve the recommended sewer, storm water, and
garbage and recycling rates for 2011.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3d) Page 5
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes November 15, 2010
Council discussed the cost of the ongoing testing related to the Reilly Tar site.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff has been working with the EPA to reduce some of the tests being
done by the City and to find ways to conduct more efficient sampling. He indicated that the goal
is to reduce these costs by as much as $150,000 over time.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is any way of having these costs shared with some other
entities.
Mr. Rardin replied that the consent decree has been reviewed to see if there are any requirements
that the City could eliminate.
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Councilmember Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Community Development
Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Planner (Mr. Fulton),
Controller (Mr. Swanson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Mark Ruff (Ehlers & Associates).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of October 11, 2010
Councilmember Mavity requested that the first paragraph on page 4 be revised to state
“Ms. Gothberg facilitated a discussion with the Council regarding the appropriate use of
staff resources, Council’s working relationship and the Council norms.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special Study Session Minutes of November 1, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that though the City does not want to get into the
business of purchasing private property, the proposed purchase makes sense; particularly
in light of the work at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue in addition to the storm retention
pond. This was a tired area and it certainly met the criteria.
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
4a. Approve premises amendment to the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday sales liquor
license for Rojo West End LLC dba Rojo Mexican Grill located at 1602 West End
Boulevard.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-133 calling for a public hearing by the City Council on
December 20, 2010 relative to the proposed Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an Economic Development
District).
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-134 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 9375 Cedar Lake Road, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 -
P.I.D. 07-117-21-32-0007.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-135 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 3245 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D.
17-117-21-23-0032.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 10-136 rescinding prior parking restrictions and
authorizing parking restrictions at 6300 Walker Street.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 10-137 rescinding prior parking restrictions and
authorizing parking restrictions at 4801 41st Street West.
4g. Approve Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 99-09, 36th Street Streetscape
Project – Project 2008-2600.
4h. Removed from Consent and placed on regular Agenda as Item 8c.
(Appoint Mayor Jeff Jacobs to serve as the St. Louis Park representative on the
Southwest Corridor Management Committee.)
4i. Approve Purchase of vacant MnDOT land and approve the purchase agreement
for re-conveyance of said vacant MnDOT land to Namakan Properties, LLC.
4j. Approval of Filing Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Ross requested that Consent Calendar item 4h be removed and placed on
the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item 4h to the regular agenda as item 8c; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing for Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Liquor Barrel
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that this public hearing is for a change of
ownership at the Liquor Barrel currently under operation at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard.
She stated that the license fee would be prorated to cover the remaining term of the
current license through March 1, 2011.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve off-sale intoxicating liquor license to MM Liquor Barrel Inc. dba Liquor Barrel
located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard in St. Louis Park for the license term through March
1, 2011.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
6b. Public Hearing – 2011 Liquor License Fees
Resolution No. 10-138
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and proposed liquor license fees for the license term
March 1, 2011 through March 1, 2012. She noted that the proposed 2011 fees reflect the
limits set forth in state law and provide for increased administrative costs and
enforcement. She advised that the only change to the liquor license fees reflect a $500
increase in the on-sale intoxicating liquor license to $8,500. She noted that the 2009 on-
sale intoxicating liquor license fee was $7,500 and had not been increased since 2001; at
the time, it was recommended that this fee be increased by $500 in 2010 and $500 in
2011. She added that all liquor license fees are comparable to other similar sized cities.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. Phil Weber, Park Tavern, appeared before the City Council and encouraged the
Council to remain sensitive to raising the liquor license fees. He stated that there are a lot
of liquor establishments in the City and the West End development has impacted his
business. He acknowledged that the City has to cover its administrative and enforcement
costs, but felt that the fee increase was unnecessary.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information regarding the significant
difference in cost for an off-sale liquor license versus an on-sale liquor license.
Ms. Stroth explained that the license fee for off-sale establishments is limited by state
statute; the only fees that the City is authorized to increase are for 3.2 and on-sale liquor.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he felt there should be some equivalency in liquor
license fees.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that it would be worthwhile to have a further discussion regarding
the apparent disparity between on-sale and off-sale liquor license fees.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Council also discuss administrative and
enforcement costs, including DUI enforcement, as part of its overall discussion on fees.
Councilmember Ross noted that the liquor license fees cannot be used as a means of
generating revenue for the City and are intended to cover administrative costs.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Resolution No. 10-138 Adopting 2011 Liquor License Fees for the License Term March
1, 2011 – March 1, 2012.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Eldridge 1st Addition – Preliminary Plat
Resolution No. 10-139
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and proposed preliminary plat for Eldridge 1st
Addition. He explained that the parcel will be subdivided into five parcels and includes
the construction of a public street off Minnetonka Boulevard on the east side of the site.
He reviewed the public street dedication and indicated that the proposed cul-de-sac meets
turning radius requirements. He stated that Minnetonka Boulevard is under the
jurisdiction of the County and that the City Engineer, using the County’s standards, has
determined that this is a safe location for a new street. He also reviewed the tree
preservation plan which includes removal of 19 significant trees resulting in replacement
of a total of 139 caliper inches of significant trees; in addition, all buckthorn and grape
vine will be removed and the City supports the removal of these noxious species. He
discussed the proposed stormwater management plan, stating that water in the area drains
to the north and the plan must comply with the City’s surface water management plan as
well as Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. He reviewed the
neighborhood and Planning Commission meetings and stated that there has been some
discussion about relocating the road off of Decatur Avenue. He indicated that the
developer is not interested in relocating the road because of the location of the
stormwater pond and because any relocation of the street would require substantial
grading of the site; in addition, a significant number of trees on the west side of the site
would need to be removed if the street were relocated. He introduced Rob Eldridge,
developer.
Mr. Rob Eldridge, Ridgecreek Builders, 9008 136th Street, Savage, appeared before the
City Council and stated that he has spent a considerable amount in engineering costs in
order to come up with the best possible solution for the parcel based on the natural grade
in the area and that has the least impact on the trees and the neighborhood. He indicated
that if the road were moved to come off Decatur Avenue, all trees along the south side
would be lost and it would require an additional five to six feet of soil being brought in.
Councilmember Sanger stated that her preference would be to have homes built that are
compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood around them. She indicated
that there have been other developments in the City where the new homes do not fit in
with the neighborhood. She asked the developer to remain sensitive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Eldridge stated that he proposes to build two-story homes with finished square
footage of approximately 3,600-4,000 square feet. He added that he wants to sell what
the market will bear and the homes represent move-up housing.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the street width could be narrowed and/or on-street
parking limited, without compromising emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Fulton replied that the width of the street will be further reviewed by staff to
determine if it can be narrowed without compromising the ordinance standards.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding the City Council’s
discretion in approving or rejecting a preliminary plat.
Mr. Scott stated that if a proposed project meets the City’s standards, the City Council
has no basis for rejecting a preliminary plat. He added that the City Council can impose
reasonable restrictions, and reiterated that if a project meets all the objective standards,
the Council has very little discretion to turn it down.
Mr. Eldridge stated that he is open to the idea of reducing the road width and having
parking restrictions on the east side, as long as emergency vehicles are able to navigate
the street.
Councilmember Santa asked if there will be opportunities for additional neighborhood
meetings as the project moves from the preliminary phase into final plat approval.
Mr. Fulton replied that there is no strict regulatory process for neighborhood
involvement, but the City encourages continued neighborhood meetings. He added that
there will be an opportunity for additional involvement with the neighbors, particularly
with respect to the landscape plan.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-139 Giving Approval for Preliminary Plat of Eldridge 1st Addition.
Mr. Kent Bowker, 3031 Decatur Avenue, appeared before the City Council and
expressed his appreciation to Council and staff for listening to the neighborhood
concerns. He stated that it appears this project will move forward and asked that
additional alterations be made so that the neighbors are all in agreement. He requested
that the Council view the site and noted that the three homes on either side of the project
are long and narrow and protected by woods. He stated that no reasonable person
expected that a new road would come in and take away all the trees. He explained that
they were not consulted in any way as to how this project would be laid out; rather, they
were presented with the preliminary plat and no changes were made despite the concerns
expressed by the neighbors. He stated he has been unable to find any development where
the neighbors are so directly and negatively impacted by a development and added their
property values will likely go down because of this project. He also expressed concern
that the scale of houses will not match what is currently in the neighborhood.
Ms. Diane Harrison, 3021 Decatur Avenue, appeared before the City Council and
expressed concern that 82% of Mr. Streeter’s property on Cavell Avenue will be
surrounded by blacktop. She stated that the developer has talked about putting up fences
or other buffers, but has not received any assurance that this will be done. She also stated
that the electrical and cable for her property comes in through the proposed development
and requested further information about how the new electrical and cable will come into
her neighborhood.
Mr. Fulton explained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all utilities be placed
underground and the intent would be that any utilities be located in the public right-of-
way along the street or in the drainage and utility easements surrounding the new lots.
He added that further discussions with Xcel Energy will take place regarding the utilities.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
Mr. Eldridge stated that utilities will be noted on the final plat. He indicated that some
discussion has taken place with the neighbors on Cavell Avenue regarding the placement
of a fence.
Mr. Bill Streeter, 3010 Cavell Avenue, appeared before the City Council and expressed
concern about the increased traffic on Minnetonka Boulevard and pedestrian safety. He
stated that he talked to the County about the additional curb cut and its impact on safety;
he stated he was told by the County that it was opposed to a curb cut in this area. He
indicated that he would prefer to see access come off Decatur Avenue. He also requested
that the developer consider putting in a solid wall to eliminate light pollution.
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff often works with the County on locating driveways near
a county road; in this case, the driveway is being replaced with a public street and will
provide a clearer area for a crossing. She added that City staff will work closely with the
County regarding layout to find the best possible location for the street.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the City has been looking to add move-up housing in
the City and expressed support for the project. She encouraged the developer to continue
to work with the neighbors and to build homes that blend well with the existing character
of the neighborhood.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to the neighbors for their input.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
8b. Presale Review of General Obligation Bonds for Louisiana Court – Series
2010C and the Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Resolution No. 10-140
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Mark Ruff from Ehlers &
Associates.
Mr. Ruff explained that the $1,755,000 in General Obligation bonds will be used for the
refunding of the PPL/Louisiana Court project. He stated that the term of these bonds will
be extended by ten years and the annual debt service reduction will provide meaningful
savings to the City. He stated that the current interest rate is over 5.8% and it is
anticipated that the refunding will have an interest rate under 4.5%. He advised that the
second bond issue represents a newer type of issue for $13,140,000 of General Obligation
Taxable Build America Bonds that are competitive with tax exempt bonds. He explained
that the federal government came up with a program to sell taxable bonds and the federal
government sends a rebate to local governments equal to 35% of the interest payment at
the end of 2010. He stated that given the 20 year term, it is anticipated that the City will
realize savings of $25,000-$30,000 by using the Build America Bonds. He added that the
anticipated sale of both bond offerings will occur on December 6th.
Councilmember Sanger stated that by refinancing the bonds on the Louisiana Court
project, not only will there be a cost savings but the refinancing will not cost anything to
the City and will actually help the City as far as having to repay anything.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes November 15, 2010
Mr. Ruff stated that there is no cost to the City associated with this refinancing. He added
that the City’s first mortgage drops significantly as a result of this refinancing.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-140 Providing for the Sale of $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2010C, and $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America
Bonds), Series 2010D.
Councilmember Ross noted that the Council has had lengthy discussions regarding the
Louisiana Court project and stated that this refinancing is a good investment for the City.
She added that the City is committed to its housing stock and in making sure the City has
viable housing that can compete with similar apartments in the area.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
8c. Appoint Mayor Jeff Jacobs to Serve as the St. Louis Park Representative on
the Southwest Corridor Management Committee
Councilmember Ross stated that there has been a lot of discussion and interest in the light
rail and indicated that the Council is being asked to appoint Mayor Jacobs to the
Southwest Corridor Management Committee.
Mayor Jacobs explained that the Southwest Corridor Management Committee is a policy
advisory committee and will be comprised of all the mayors of the cities along the
corridor, two County Commissioners, and the chair of the Met Council. He stated that the
committee will be discussing the preliminary design process and design features for the
light rail corridor itself, including transit oriented design and the various impacts to cities
along the route.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to appoint
Mayor Jeff Jacobs to serve as the St. Louis Park representative on the Southwest
Corridor Management Committee.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Omodt absent).
9. Communications
The City Council expressed “happy birthday” wishes to Mayor Jacobs.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Award of the 2011 Arts and Culture Grants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution authorizing award of the 2011 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture
Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made by the Arts and Culture Grant
Review Committee?
BACKGROUND:
The Council has supported the Arts and Culture Grant program since its inception in 2006. The
grant application for 2011 was released in September with a November 5 deadline. This process
allows grantees one full year to complete their projects.
Each year the Arts & Culture Grant Committee offers a grant to fund art projects and cultural
activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engaging people in creative
learning, and promoting artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. This
program is funded through the city’s budget process ($16,000). St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts
provides technical assistance to the program and its recipients.
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants review committee, comprised of the St. Louis Park
Community Foundation, Friends of the Arts, city staff, and community members, reviewed the
applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives of the program
and are compatible with the Council’s strategic direction on Vision for arts, culture and
community aesthetics. For the 2011 grant process, 15 applications were received seeking funding
totaling $86,127.00.
After further review, the committee is recommending the following five applicantsbe approved
to receive Arts & Culture Grant money for their project:
Theatre OR (at the Sabes JCC) – $2,000 for their theater production of “Oyl” by Rich Orloff
in May 2011. This production will feature over 20 artists from the community of St. Louis Park.
The Park Theater Company - $4,500 for the St. Louis Park’s Community Theater production
of Thorton Wilder’s “Our Town”.
Georgia Kandiko - $3,845 for a Cartooning Mystery Art Hunt. Georgia Kandiko will be
installing nine cartoon story signs paired with nine mosaic tables telling a story of a mystery
solving superhero, and a series of cartooning classes offered to St. Louis Park residents.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Award of the 2011 Arts and Culture Grants
Children First - $4,250 to display a photo exhibit introducing the residents of St. Louis Park to
their neighbors from diverse backgrounds. This project will help build bridges as residents
discover what they have in common with their neighbors and what rich traditions others bring to
St. Louis Park’s tapestry.
Joanne Bongaarts/William Hessian - $800 for an Art in the Park Hunt. This project will
motivate community members of all ages to explore parks for miniature paintings. Artist William
Hessian will be creating the miniature art work that will be hidden and sought out by adults and
youth with the help of clues throughout the summer. Winners will be acknowledged during the
St. Louis Park summer celebration, Parktacular.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This program is funded through from the Housing Rehab Fund ($16,000). The total amount
granted for art projects in 2011 will be $15,395. The grant committee has an idea of how to
enhance the grant program by setting aside some of the annually allotted money for a future
project. The committee will be submitting their recommendations to Council at a later date in
2011.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics
in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Award of the 2011 Arts and Culture Grants
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK ARTS & CULTURE
GRANTS TO THEATRE OR (AT THE SABES JCC), THE PARK
THEATER COMPANY, GEORGIA KANDIKO, CHILDREN FIRST,
AND JOANNE BONGAARTS/WILLIAM HESSIAN
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park created this program in 2006 with the assistance
of Friends of the Arts and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation to create and support a
$16,000 grant program to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between
artists and communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote artistic production and
cultural experiences in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, fifteen applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated by
a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, St.
Louis Park Friends of the Arts, St. Louis Park Schools, the city, and community members; and
WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund five (5) grant proposals
for a total of $15,395: Theatre OR (at the Sabes JCC), The Park Theater Company, Georgia
Kandiko, Childrens First, and Joanne Bongaarts/William Hessian.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following
organizations based on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals.
1. Theatre OR is awarded a maximum of $2,000.
2. The Park Theater Company is awarded a maximum of $4,500.
3. Georgia Kandiko is awarded a maximum of $3.845.
4. Children First is awarded a maximum of $4,250
5. Joann Bongaarts/William Hessian is awarded a maximum of $800.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 122-09 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2008-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $24,015.13 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project - Texas Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project No. 2008-
1101, City Contract No. 122-09.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project, Project No.
2008-1101. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Valley Paving, Inc on September 21,
2009 in the amount of $108,825.75. This project included asphalt pavement mill and overlay
work on Texas Avenue from W. 36th Street to Highway 7.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (17 days) at a final contract
cost of $108,570.44, including one change order in the amount of -$142.90 plus miscellaneous
underruns amounting to $112.41.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2009 capital budget. The project is funded by
State Aid funds raised through the gas tax.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 122-09 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2008-1101
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,015.13 FOR THE
2009 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WITH VALLEY PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-1101
CONTRACT NO. 122-09
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 21, 2009, Valley Paving,
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the 2009 MSA Improvement Project, as per Contract
No. 122-09.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 108,825.75
Change Orders -$142.90
Underruns -$112.41
Contract Amount $ 108,570.44
Previous Payments $84,555.31
Balance Due $ 24,015.13
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 72-09 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2009-1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $11,301.09 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project – Alabama Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project No.
2009-1100, City Contract No. 72-09.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project, Project No.
2009-1100. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Valley Paving, Inc on June 15, 2009
in the amount of $631,912.26. This project included street and utility rehabilitation work on
Alabama Avenue from W. 36th Street to Excelsior Blvd.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (65 days) at a final contract
cost of $629,379.46, including three change orders in the amount of $1,978.40 and underruns
amounting to $4,511.20.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2009 capital budget. The project is funded by
State Aid funds raised through the gas tax.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 72-09 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2009-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,301.09 FOR THE
2009 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WITH VALLEY PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2009-1100
CONTRACT NO. 72-09
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 15, 2009, Valley Paving, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the 2009 MSA Improvement Project, as per Contract No. 72-09.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 631,912.26
Change Orders $1,978.40
Underruns -$4,511.20
Contract Amount $ 629,379.46
Previous Payments $618,078.37
Balance Due $ 11,301.09
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 6, 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 110-10 Allied Blacktop Company – Project No. 2010-0001.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,146.99 for the 2010
City Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 2010-0001, City Contract No.
110-10.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve this final contract payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2010 Sealcoat Project– City Project No. 2010-0001. The
project was advertised, bid and awarded to Allied Blacktop Company on July 6, 2010 in the
amount of $259,281.40. This project included sealcoating selected streets in Pavement
Management Area 2 which comprises the neighborhoods of Triangle, Wolf Park, Minikahda
Oaks, Minikahda Vista and Browndale.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (10 days) at a final contract
cost of $238,292.66. The project had underruns amounting to $24,646.24, and a change order in
the amount of $3,657.50. The underruns are a result of not sealcoating some streets in the
project area. The streets (south frontage road of Hwy7/County Rd 25) were removed from the
project because the pavements will removed and replaced during the upgrade of the Met Council
sanitary sewer interceptor line which is scheduled to occur in 2011-2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2010 capital budget. The work will be paid for
using the Pavement Management Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 110-10 Allied Blacktop Company – Project No. 2010-0001
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $13,146.99 FOR THE 2010 CITY SEALCOAT PROJECT
WITH ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY ACCEPTING WORK ON
CONTRACT SEALCOATING
CITY PROJECT NO. 2010-0001
CONTRACT NO. 110-10
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 July 6, 2010, Allied Blacktop Company
has satisfactorily completed the contract sealcoating, as per Contract No. 110-10.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 259,281.40
Change Order $3,657.50
Underruns $24,646.24
Contract Amount $ 238,292.66
Previous Payments $225,145.67
Balance Due $ 13,146.99
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Contract
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Ostvig Tree, Inc. as the 2011 Boulevard Tree
Pruning Contractor in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue the City’s boulevard tree trimming program for 2011?
BACKGROUND:
This will be our eighth year of city wide contract rotation boulevard tree pruning. The goal of
this contract is to increase the safety, health and function of all boulevard trees by removing low
branches, removing deadwood and eliminating future impediments to growth. This contract only
covers boulevard trees. Ostvig Tree, Inc. has successfully completed the 2007, 2008, and 2010
boulevard tree pruning contracts for the City of St. Louis Park. Parks and city-owned property
trees are rotationally pruned by Parks Maintenance staff.
Beginning on approximately January 3 and continuing until March 31, 2011 this contractual
rotational pruning will be performed, beginning in the Cedar Manor Neighborhood and
continuing into and through the Crestview, Westdale, Willow Park and Pennsylvania Park
neighborhoods. This rotational pruning keeps our cyclical tree maintenance on a nine year
rotation.
Bid Analysis: Ostvig Tree, Inc. presented the lowest responsible bid from a 2009 bid opening
and was awarded the contract for 2010. The City is renewing the 2010 contract with Ostvig for
2011. As is standard practice for contract renewals, another bid was solicited in 2010 from one
other tree company. City Attorney, Tom Scott, has reviewed the contract with Ostvig and is
comfortable with renewing this contract. The comparison bids, based upon specifications for a
two person crew with adequate equipment on a per hour basis, are:
Ostvig Tree, Inc. ....................................................................$ 75.80 per hour (2009 bid)
Heritage Shade Tree Consultants…………………………...$100.00 per hour (2010 bid)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Ostvig, Tree Inc. will continue to prune boulevard trees until they reach the overall $60,000
contract amount. As in the past, staff will closely monitor the contractual obligations and work of
the contractor.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Contract for Boulevard Tree Pruning
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Managing our urban forest is consistent with the city’s Strategic Direction of being a leader in
environmental stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire
suppression sprinkler system at 6500 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with a policy the Council established in 1995.
BACKGROUND:
Thomas and Catherine Dunn, owner(s) of the commercial building at 6500 West Lake Street,
have requested the City to authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler
system for the commercial building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with
the City’s special assessment policy.
ANALYSIS:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing
buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire
suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public
health, safety and welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system due to a major remodeling
project in the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler
system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on
the proposed work, the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property
owner has petitioned the City to authorize installation of a fire sprinkler system and special assess
the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The
total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $36,400.00. An administrative fee
of $182.00 shall be received prior to the release of the special assessment funds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund to assist with this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Resolution
Contract
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT
6500 WEST LAKE STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416,
HENNEPIN COUNTY P.I.D. NUMBER 17-117-21-41-0071
WHEREAS, Tom and Catherine Dunn , the Property Owner at 6500 West Lake Street
have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of
a fire sprinkler system in the building on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their 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
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system
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 fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire
sprinkler system is accepted at $36,400.00.
4. An administrative fee of $182.00 (.5% of $36,400.00) for processing shall be
received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5. The total special assessment against the property will be $36,400.00.
6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights 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.
7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five
point eight five percent (5.85%) interest.
8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other
document’s necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system
and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 3
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 4
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FIRE PROTECTION (SPRINKLER) IMPROVEMENT, FOR THOMAS AND
CATHERINE DUNN, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6500 WEST LAKE STREET,
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
AGREEMENT made as of December 6, 2010 between the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota corporation (“City”) and Thomas and Catherine Dunn, (Owners). “Property
Owner(s)”, concerning special assessment on fire sprinkler improvement on property located at
6500 West Lake Street, Hennepin County P.I.D. number 17-117-21-41-0071, “Benefited
Property” described as “Lots 30, 31, 32 and 33, Block 177, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.”
The City and the Property Owner agree as follows:
1) Property Owner(s). The Property Owners are Thomas and Catherine Dunn.
2) Subject Property. The Property Owner is the fee owner of the property legally
described in attached “Exhibit A” incorporated by reference herein.
3) Purpose of Agreement. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 sub. 3 and
St. Louis Park Resolution 10-_________ the Property Owner petitioned the City on October 6,
2010 to specially assess the cost of the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in his
building at the Benefited Property. The petition attached as “Exhibit B” is incorporated into this
agreement by reference. The City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the
public for the City to facilitate the installation of a fire sprinkler system in the Benefited Property
to promote the public health, safety and welfare.
4) Administrative Fee. An administrative fee of $182.00 for the processing of the
sprinkler special assessment shall be received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5) The Improvement Project. The construction of an automatic fire sprinkler
system throughout the commercial building at the Benefited Property in conformance with plans
and specifications as described in Exhibit B and as approved by the St. Louis Park Fire and
Inspections Departments.
6) Responsibility. The Property Owner shall assume all responsibility for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the fire sprinkler system, including all construction
contracts and monitoring agreements.
7) Amount to be assessed. The total estimated cost of the project, based on the
lowest responsible bid, is $36,400.00, all of which is proposed to be assessed against the
Benefited Property as described in Paragraph 2 above. It is hereby agreed that the full cost of the
project and minus the administrative fee of $182.00 will be assessed against the property. The
total Special Assessment against the property will be $36,400.00.
8) Waiver of Notice and Hearing. In connection with this improvement, the
Property Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to public hearing and right to
any notice, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by
ordinance, City Charter, constitution, or common law.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 5
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
9) Waiver of Right of Appeal. In connection with this improvement, the Property
Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to appeal from the special assessment
set forth above, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by
ordinance, City Charter, constitution, or common law.
10) Implementation. Each party to this agreement agrees to execute any other
documents upon request of the City, necessary to implement the waivers of notice, hearing and
right of appeal for the special assessment for the improvement project.
11) Payment. The Property Owner agrees to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements in accordance with the following terms:
a) The assessment shall be paid in equal installments over ten (10) years at five point
eight-five percent (5.85%) interest on the unpaid balance and in accordance with all
provisions of the City policy for special assessments for fire sprinkler improvements.
12) Indemnification. The Property Owner shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, or
expenses, including attorneys fees, which may be suffered or from which they may be held
liable, rising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or
obligations in consequence of the performance of this agreement by the City, its employees,
agents or subcontractors.
13) Certification of Encumbrances or Contract for Deed. Each party to this
agreement certifies that the property described in Paragraph 1 above, is owned by that party in
simple fee and is free and clear of all encumbrances or Contracts for Deed except as follows:
14) Right to Record. It is agreed that the City may record this document in the chain
of title of the Benefited Property legally described above.
15) Payment. The Property Owner agrees that, after the City has completed the
required inspections and has determined that the installation of the fire sprinkler system is in
conformance with the applicable City ordinances and State laws, the Property Owner will
provide the following documents to the City to allow the City to process payment of the amount
to be assessed for the installation of the fire sprinkler system on the Benefited Property:
a) A sworn construction statement stipulating the contractors and suppliers involved in the
fire sprinkler installation on the Benefited Property and the agreed payment amounts, and
b) A written notice from the Property Owner that they have determined the installation of
the fire sprinkler system has been substantially completed as stipulated in their contract
with their contractor, and
c) Evidence of receipt of a lien waiver from the contractors and suppliers for the
improvement project on the Benefited Property.
It is further agreed by the City and the Property Owners, in making payment to the Property
Owner, the City is not assuming responsibility for payment to any contractor or supplier for the
installation of the improvement project on the Benefited Property.
This agreement has been entered into as of the 6 day of December, 2010.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 6
Subject: Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
__________ ____________________________________
Attest: Mayor
________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk City Manager
____________________________________
Fire Marshal
(seal)
Accounting Records Posted:
____________________________________
Finance Manager
* FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER:
ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCE(S) PROPERTY OWNER
____________________________________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
* All signatures of owners or encumbrances must be acknowledged by a Notary Public.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2010,
by _______________________________________, property located at 6500 West Lake Street
Property Owner(s)
____________________________________
Notary Public
THIS AGREEMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
St. Louis Park Fire Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952-924-2500
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amend the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No.1 to Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant
Agreement, County Contract No. A081254, extending the current Agreement between Hennepin
County and the City of St. Louis Park for one additional year.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve extending the agreement so that the City can continue to
receive funding from Hennepin County for its recycling program?
BACKGROUND:
Annually in February the City submits a grant report and application for SCORE funding.
SCORE funds are derived from a 6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. These funds
are distributed to Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection. Since 1988
the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting the residential
curbside recycling program that serves all single family through four-plex residential structures.
The County’s share of SCORE funds is divided between cities on a proportional basis by the
number of households.
On September 15, 2008 the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Hennepin County
Residential Recycling Grant Agreement. The current Agreement covers the period from January
1, 2008 through December 31, 2010.
On November 16, 2010 Hennepin County provided this Amendment requesting the City extend
the term of the Agreement for one additional year with no other changes to the Agreement. In
order for the City to receive grant funds in 2011, the City and County need to approve the
amendment before the end of this calendar year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The funding from this grant program is necessary to help operate the City’s recycling program.
In 2010 the grant amount received by the City was $103,342.00
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Vision area:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments: Amendment No. 1
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement Page 2
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Subject: Amend the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement Page 3
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff will present information pertaining to the 2011 property tax supported budgets, 2011
General Property Tax Levy and other general tax information. After the presentation, the Mayor
is asked to open the public hearing, solicit comments and close the public hearing. There is no
other formal action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City is required to annually hold a Truth in Taxation Public Hearing to solicit public input
on the budget and property tax levy for the following fiscal year if it is proposing any property
tax levy increase. Current legislation allows a city to hold the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
and adopt the Final General Property Tax Levy and 2011 Budget on the same evening. The City
of St. Louis Park has chosen not to adopt the budget and tax levy the same evening, but rather
wait until the subsequent regular City Council meeting scheduled for December 20, 2010. This
will allow for any additional public process to occur and also allow the Council time to analyze
any input received at the hearing from December 6, 2010.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the 2011 Proposed Budget, Preliminary General Property Tax Levy and
HRA Levy at its September 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, the City Council proposed to set
the 2011 Preliminary General Property Tax Levy at $23,562,363, which is an increase of
$1,096,913, or approximately a 4.88% increase from the 2010 Final Property Tax Levy. The
City Council also adopted a 2011 Preliminary HRA Levy of $1,028,888, which is used for
infrastructure purposes. This Preliminary HRA Levy is $1,028,888, which is a $14,453 decrease
or approximately a 1.39% less than the 2010 Final HRA Levy.
City Council has reviewed and discussed both the 2011 Proposed Budget and the 2011 – 2015 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) at a number of meetings during the year. Formal adoption of the 2011
Budget, 2011 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, 2011 Utility Rates, 2011 Fee
Schedule, and the 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for December 20, 2010.
Current Budget Status Update
• A 4.88% or $1,096,913 increase from the 2010 Final Property Tax Levy compared to the
2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy.
• Budget proposes maintaining services at their current levels
• The debt service levy decreased by $361,705 from 2010 due to retiring of bonds.
• $550,779 of the levy increase is being proposed to the General and Park and Recreation
Funds operations in total and $907,839 is being applied to capital needs. Therefore, the
sum of the debt service levy decrease and increases in operations and capital equals
$1,096,913.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 2
Attachment 1 shows several levy options available to the City Council if they desire to revisit the
levy in preparation for the Final Levy Adoption on December 20, 2010. Attachment 2 outlines a
summary of revenues for the General Fund and Park and Recreation Funds. Attachment 3
outlines a summary of expenditures for the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park’s property tax levy helps support the operations of the General, Parks
and Recreation, Park Improvement, Capital Replacement, and Pavement Management Funds. In
addition, the levy covers the debt service requirements on General Obligation bonds. Based on a
4.88% levy increase, the progression of the proposed property tax levy allocation is shown in the
chart below:
2010 2011 Dollar Change %age Change
Levy Preliminary From 2010 From 2010
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $19,543,393 $20,094,172 $550,779 2.82%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 1,717,839 907,839 112.08%
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300 338,300 - 0.00%
Pavement Management Fund 415,000 415,000 - 0.00%
Debt Service 1,358,700 996,995 (361,705) -26.62%
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $22,465,393 $23,562,306 $1,096,913 4.88%
OTHER:
There were no letters or formal requests received in Finance addressing the proposed increase in
the city portion of their property taxes as of November 30, 2010.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision SLP, including the Councils Strategic Directions, were used in preparing the budget
documents.
Attachments: 1 - Proposed Tax Levy Options for 2011 and 2012
2 - Summary of Revenues – General Fund and Park and Recreation
3 - Summary of Expenditures – General Fund and Park and Recreation
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKProposed Levy OptionsFor 2011 and 2012Levy YearLevy AmountTotal Change Percent Change201022,465,393$ 11,700$ 500,000$ 138,300$ 650,000$ 2.98%2011 Levy Options1) 2011 w/(38)K GF22,254,472$ (361,705)$ (38,300)$ -$ (400,005)$ -0.94%9.28%2) 2011 w/$551K GF22,654,472$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ -$ 189,074$ 0.84%7.35%3) 2011 w/551K GF & 361K Capital23,016,177$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ 361,705$ 550,779$ 2.45%5.66%4) 2011 w/551K GF & 474K Capital23,128,472$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ 474,000$ 663,074$ 2.95%5.15%5) 2011 w/551K GF & 597K Capital23,251,472$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ 597,000$ 786,074$ 3.50%4.59%6) 2011 w/551K GF & 709K Capital23,363,472$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ 709,000$ 898,074$ 4.00%4.09%7) 2011 Max Levy 23,562,306$ (361,705)$ 550,779$ 907,839$ 1,096,913$ 4.88%3.21%2012 (Projected)w/602K to Gen. Fund 24,319,655$ 1,062,600$ 602,583$ -$ 1,665,183$ Debt Service ChangeGeneral Fund and Park and Rec. Change Capital ChangeLevy Need for 2012City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 6a) Subject: 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Page 3
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2009 2010 2010 2011 Dollar % Change
Actual Adopted Final Requested Change Final to '11
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,162,792$ 14,889,605$ 14,889,605$ 15,426,072$ 536,467 3.60%
Licenses and Permits 2,779,167 2,294,768 2,294,768 2,345,910 51,142 2.23%
Intergovernmental 1,570,309 1,606,347 1,598,787 1,136,187 (462,600) -28.93%
Charges for Services 1,034,854 1,115,904 1,138,018 1,152,642 14,624 1.29%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 332,694 311,750 311,750 328,200 16,450 5.28%
Investment Earnings 260,263 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 170,876 101,500 101,600 104,900 3,300 3.25%
Transfers In 2,685,300 2,583,625 2,583,825 2,589,876 6,051 0.23%
Use of Fund Balance - 51,000 51,000 - (51,000) -100.00%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,996,255$ 23,154,499$ 23,169,353$ 23,283,787$ 114,434 0.49%
Appropriations 22,477,873$ 23,154,499$ 23,169,353$ 23,283,787$ 114,434 0.49%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 1,518,382$ -$ -$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,073,118$ 4,014,872$ 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ (14,311) -0.36%
Licenses and Permits 6,865 6,275 6,275 6,600 325 5.18%
Intergovernmental 67,622 71,219 71,219 77,652 6,433 9.03%
Charges for Services 1,042,612 1,090,014 1,073,900 1,095,250 21,350 1.99%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings 760 - - - - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 984,559 919,900 919,900 952,400 32,500 3.53%
Transfers In 33,274 - - - - 0.00%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,208,810$ 6,102,280$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.76%
Appropriations 5,835,524$ 6,102,280$ 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.76%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations 373,286$ -$ (0)$ 0$
Grand Totals:30,205,065$ 29,256,779$ 29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731$ 0.55%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPEND. G.F. AND P&R.:(0)$
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Page 4
City of St. Louis Park
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2009 2010 2010 2011 Dollar % Change
and Activity Actual Adopted Final Requested Change Final to '11
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,512,627$ 1,627,973$ 1,569,422$ 1,542,570$ (26,853) -1.71%
Communications & Marketing 272,270 278,705 281,905 294,470 12,565 4.46%
Community Outreach 80,634 86,055 86,255 88,515 2,260 2.62%
Information Resources 1,414,794 1,399,766 1,400,666 1,394,226 (6,440) -0.46%
Accounting/Assessing 1,121,237 1,095,330 1,078,930 1,113,106 34,176 3.17%
Community Development 1,050,332 1,043,850 1,051,150 1,094,186 43,036 4.09%
Facilities Maintenance 1,020,128 1,088,442 1,081,742 1,114,550 32,808 3.03%
Total General Government 6,472,022 6,620,121 6,550,070 6,641,622 91,552 1.40%
Public Safety:
Police 6,954,076 7,282,502 7,306,402 7,208,512 (97,890) -1.34%
Fire Protection 3,031,709 3,094,160 3,122,173 3,164,344 42,171 1.35%
Inspectional Services 1,918,353 1,790,550 1,816,227 1,863,296 47,069 2.59%
Total Public Safety 11,904,138 12,167,212 12,244,802 12,236,152 (8,650) -0.07%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 913,576 855,700 854,900 829,698 (25,203) -2.95%
Engineering 797,018 822,800 829,800 846,031 16,231 1.96%
Operations 2,383,457 2,508,666 2,509,100 2,550,285 41,185 1.64%
Total Public Works 4,094,051 4,187,166 4,193,800 4,226,014 32,214 0.77%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,188,616 1,264,407 1,245,408 1,239,230 (6,178) -0.50%
Recreation Center 1,341,344 1,435,957 1,436,858 1,442,447 5,589 0.39%
Park Maintenance 1,389,939 1,397,007 1,396,715 1,435,374 38,659 2.77%
Westwood 481,650 491,911 493,450 502,366 8,916 1.81%
Environment 414,311 349,943 351,543 371,325 19,782 5.63%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,019,664 1,163,055 1,162,192 1,141,721 (20,471) -1.76%
Total Park & Recreation 5,835,524 6,102,280 6,086,166 6,132,462 46,296 0.76%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 7,662 180,000 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.38%
Total Non-Departmental 7,662 180,000 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.38%
Total General & Park Funds 28,313,397$ 29,256,779$ 29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731 0.55%
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
Page 5
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing – Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General Obligation Bonds – Series 2010C.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to open the public hearing, solicit comments, and close the public hearing pertaining to
the Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General Obligation Bonds – Series 2010C.
(Note – given the fact that the proposed refunding of the bonds will increase the length of the
maturity compared to the current bond issue, a public hearing is required to be held.)
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with refunding the Louisiana Court bonds, which will
lower the overall debt on the projects, but increase the length of maturity when compared to the
current bond issue?
BACKGROUND:
For several months, the City Council has been discussing financial issues relative to the
PPL/Louisiana Court project. As a part of this, a discussion took place regarding the refinancing
of the bonds for this project. The Council concurred that the refinancing of the bonds should be
undertaken along with other steps.
As discussed previously with the City Council, the new overall refinancing plan results in
approximately a $1.9 million reduction in the debt carried by the City and paid by Louisiana
Court.
This bond issue will refund the existing Louisiana Court Bonds in an amount of approximately
$1,755,000 over a term of 30 years. By refunding the bonds, the project will see an annual debt
service reduction from the current amount of approximately $290,000 to $100,000, for a
difference of approximately $190,000 per year. This results in approximately $2.9 million
savings over the life of the refunding bonds. This refunding will increase the length of maturity
when compared to the current bond issue and, as such, requires a public hearing to be held. As
mentioned above, this refunding will significantly reduce Louisiana Court’s debt obligation with
the goal of aiding in long term sustainability for the complex. The proposed refunding also
reduces the City’s financial exposure given the general obligation nature of the bonds.
Next Steps
Subsequent to the public hearing, the City Council is being asked to award the sale of the
refunding bonds. The closing on the bonds is scheduled for the week of December 26, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Refunding the bonds will significantly reduce Louisiana Court’s debt obligation with the goal of
aiding in long term sustainability for the complex and reduced financial exposure to the City.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing – Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General Obligation Bonds – Series 2010C
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continued support of the project is consistent with the City’s visioning strategy and housing
goals including the City’s commitment to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock,
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for the General Obligation Bonds for Louisiana Court – Series
2010C and the Fire Stations – Series 2010D.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolutions awarding the sale of:
• Approximately $1,755,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C; and
• Approximately $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds (Build America Bonds),
Series 2010D
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing
General Obligation Taxable Build America Bonds (BAB’s) to assist in financing the construction
of two new Fire Stations?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is being asked to approve the sale of bonds for the PPL/Louisiana Court Project
and the construction of two fire stations. It is proposed that the bond issues for Louisiana Court
and the Fire Stations be done simultaneously in order to save the City money in issuance costs.
The whole formal bond issuance process started in November, with the estimated closing date
scheduled for the week of December 26, 2010.
Louisiana Court
For several months, the City Council has been discussing financial issues relative to the
PPL/Louisiana Court project. As a part of this, a discussion took place regarding the refinancing
of the bonds for this project. The Council concurred that the refinancing of the bonds should be
undertaken along with other steps.
As discussed previously with the City Council, the new overall refinancing plan results in
approximately a $1.9 million reduction in the debt carried by the City and paid by Louisiana Court.
This bond issue will refund the existing Louisiana Court Bonds in an amount of approximately
$1,755,000 over a term of 30 years. By refunding the bonds, the project will see an annual debt
service reduction from the current amount of approximately $290,000 to $100,000, for a difference
of approximately $190,000 per year. This results in approximately $2.9 million savings over the
life of the refunding bonds. This refunding will increase the length of maturity when compared to
the current bond issue and, as such, will require a public hearing which is scheduled for the
meeting on December 6th, 2010. As mentioned above, this refunding will significantly reduce
Louisiana Court’s debt obligation with the goal of aiding in long term sustainability for the
complex.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Fire Stations
This project has now moved into the Construction Document preparation phase. The project
budget for constructing both stations is approximately $15.5 million. The City Council received a
full update on this project at a special study session prior to the regular City Council meeting back
on November 15.
This bond issue of approximately $13,140,000 will be facilitated by utilizing Build America Bonds
(BAB’s), which is a program that is part of the Federal Government’s American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Approximately $3 million of this project cost will be paid by the Fire
portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund with the remaining portion, or $12.5 million, coming
from the net bond proceeds. These bonds are a taxable issue, with a 35% rebate provided by the
federal government, effectively providing a projected interest savings to the City of St. Louis Park
over traditional tax exempt bonds. The BAB’s are also more attractive to investors due to the
higher interest rate they provide, thereby benefitting both the issuer and the buyer.
By issuing Build America Bonds in this amount, the City could possibly realize a present value
savings of approximately $408,000 over the life of the bonds. Annual debt service will be
approximately $910,000 per year after factoring in the 105% statutory levy requirement. Attached
is information detailing the bond issue for City Council review.
On December 6, 2010, at 11:00am, the sale of the bonds occurs for both Louisiana Court and the
Fire Stations. The bonds would then be scheduled to close the week of December 26, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
By refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing BAB’s for the Fire Stations construction, the
City would be realizing lower risk and savings in the long term.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution Awarding the Sale of Approximately $1,755,000 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C
Resolution Awarding the Sale of Approximately $13,140,000 Taxable
General Obligation Bonds (Build America Bonds), Series 2010D
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, December 6,
2010, commencing at 7:00 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
* * * * * * * * *
The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals
that had been received for the purchase of the City’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds
(Louisiana Court Project), Series 2010C, proposed to be issued in an aggregate principal amount of
$_____________.
The City Finance Director presented a tabulation of the proposals that had been received in
the manner specified in the Official Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set
forth in Exhibit A attached.
After due consideration of the proposals, Member ____________________ then introduced
the following resolution and moved its adoption:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS (LOUISIANA COURT
PROJECT), SERIES 2010C, PROPOSED TO BE ISSUED IN
AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $_________;
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY AND
PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT; APPROVING
RELATED AGREEMENTS AND CERTIFICATES
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park Minnesota
(the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The City, a home rule city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, is
authorized under its home rule charter (the “Charter”) to issue bonds for any public purpose not
prohibited by law.
1.02. The Housing Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and
politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Authority”), is authorized under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended (the “Act”), to undertake certain housing development
projects intended to alleviate a shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing for persons of low or
moderate income and their families (as such income is defined by the Authority); the City is
authorized by the Act to enter into agreements with the Authority regarding projects undertaken
under the Act and is further authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, to
perform functions for the Authority that the City is authorized to provide for itself; and the
Authority and the City are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.192, as amended to
make loans to private parties for any purpose that the City and the Authority are authorized to
carry out under the Act.
1.03. PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
“Borrower”), the general partner of which is PPL Louisiana Court, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, acquired certain rental housing facilities located within the boundaries of the
City and renovated the facilities for use as a multifamily rental housing facility intended primarily
for low and moderate income persons and their families (the “Facility”).
1.04. The City and the Authority provided for the financing of the Facility pursuant to the
Charter, the Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.192 and 471.59 and Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 475, through issuance by the City of its $4,505,000 General Obligation Bonds (Louisiana
Court Project), Series 2000A (the “Series 2000A Bonds”).
1.05. Pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2000 (the “Prior Loan
Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, the City loaned the proceeds derived from the
sale of the Series 2000A Bonds to the Borrower to finance the costs of issuance of the
Series 2000A Bonds, to fund certain reserves, and to pay a portion of the costs of the acquisition
and renovation of the Facility.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
1.06. The Bonds were secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the City and by
the taxing power of the City and were also payable from payments made by the Borrower pursuant
to the Prior Loan Agreement.
1.07. The obligations of the Borrower under the Prior Loan Agreement were secured by a
Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Leases, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing, dated as of
May 1, 2000 (the “Prior Mortgage”), from the Borrower to the City.
1.08. The City and the Borrower entered into a Regulatory Agreement, dated as of
May 1, 2000 (the “Original Regulatory Agreement”), which related to the tax-exempt status of the
interest on the Series 2000A Bonds and compliance by the Borrower with certain federal and state
requirements applicable to the Facility.
1.09. The City is authorized, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 3 to
issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon before the
due date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when
determined by the City Council to be necessary or desirable for the reduction of debt service cost
to the City or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in relation to the resources available for
their payment.
1.10. Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subdivision 4 permits the sale of refunding
obligations during the six month period prior to the date on which the obligations to be refunded
may be called for redemption.
1.11. It is necessary and desirable to reduce debt service costs that the City issue its
$__________ General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Louisiana Court Project), Series 2010C
(the “Bonds”) to refund the Series 2000A Bonds, of which $3,665,000 in principal amount,
maturing in 2012 and thereafter, is currently outstanding and is callable on or after August 1, 2010.
1.12. Pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010 (the
“Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Borrower, the City proposes to make a loan (the
“Loan”) to the Borrower to be funded from the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds. The
proceeds of the Loan will be applied by the Borrower, together with other funds described herein,
to prepay the obligations of the Borrower under the Prior Loan Agreement which prepayments will
be applied to the redemption and prepayment of the Series 2000A Bonds in whole.
1.13. The obligations of the Borrower under the Loan Agreement will be secured by a
Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Leases, Security Agreement, and Fixture Filing, dated as of
December 1, 2010 (the “Prior Mortgage”), from the Borrower to the City.
1.14. In connection with issuance of the Bonds, the City and Borrower will enter into a
First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement dated as of December 1, 2010 (the “Regulatory
Agreement Amendment”).
1.15. A portion of the redemption price for the Series 2000A Bonds will be paid from
proceeds of certain loans made to Borrower by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the
Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Family Housing Fund (together,
the “Other Lenders”), and from proceeds of a separate loan to Borrower form the City (the “City
Loan”); and in connection with such loans the City will enter to into a Master Disbursing
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Agreement dated as of December 1, 2010 (the “Master Disbursing Agreement”) among the City,
the Borrower and the Other Lenders, and a Master Subordination Agreement dated as of
December 1, 2010 (the “Master Disbursing Agreement”) among the City, the Borrower and the
Other Lenders.
1.15. As required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), on November 18, 2010, a notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the City
Council of the City was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor, a newspaper of general
circulation within the jurisdiction of the City.
1.16. As required by Section 147(f) of the Code, on December 6, 2010, the City Council
conducted a public hearing with respect to the issuance of the Bonds to refund the Series 2000A
Bonds (which Bonds will extend the average weighted maturity of the Series 2000A Bonds), and
thereafter adopted this resolution (the “Resolution”), and with respect to an Amended Housing
Program (the “Housing Program”).
1.17. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) to
negotiate the sale of the Bonds because the City has retained an independent financial advisor in
connection with the sale of the Bonds.
Section 2. Definitions; Other General Provisions. For all purposes of this
Resolution, except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context clearly otherwise
requires:
2.01. Definitions. The terms defined in Section 1.1 of the Loan Agreement, when used in
this Resolution, shall have the meanings specified in that Section.
All references in this instrument to designated “Articles,” “Sections” and other
subdivisions are to the designated Articles, Sections, and other subdivisions of this instrument as
originally executed.
The words “herein,” “hereof” and “hereunder,” and other words of similar import, without
reference to any particular Article, Section, or subdivision, refer to this Resolution as a whole and
not to any particular Article, Section or other subdivision.
The terms defined in this Section have the meanings assigned to them in this Section and
include the plural as well as the singular.
All accounting terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
All computations herein provided for shall be made in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
“Or” is not intended to be exclusive but to encompass one or more or all of the alternatives
conjoined.
“Accountant” means a certified public accountant or accountants retained by the Borrower.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
“Authenticating Agent” means any Person designated by or pursuant to this Resolution to
authenticate Bonds at the request of the City.
“Bond Counsel” means any attorney or firm of attorneys nationally recognized as
experienced in matters relating to the tax-exempt financing of facilities of the same character as the
Facility, retained by the Borrower or the City.
“Bond Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.03.
“Bondholder” means a Person in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register.
“Bonds” means the Series 2010C Bonds.
“Bond Register” has the meaning provided in Section 4.03.
“Bond Year” means the period from the date of issuance of the Series 2010C Bonds to
January 31, 2011, and as long as any Bonds are Outstanding, each one-year period thereafter
commencing on any February 1 and ending on January 31 of the following year.
“Borrower” means PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited
partnership, the general partner of which is PPL Louisiana Court, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and any permitted successor to the Borrower under Section 7.1 of the Loan Agreement.
“Borrower Certificate” means a certificate of the Borrower signed by a person then having
been granted signatory authority and delivered to the City.
“Borrower Request” means a written request signed in the name of the Borrower by a
person then having been granted signatory authority and delivered to the City.
“Borrower Resolution” means a resolution, written consent or other form of formal action
taken by the Borrower then in full force and effect and delivered to the City.
“Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or other day on which the
City is not open for business.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, a home rule city and political subdivision of the
State of Minnesota, and any successor to its functions.
“City Loan” means the loan made the City to Borrower in the amount of $500,000,
pursuant to a loan agreement between the City and Borrower dated December ___, 2010.
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.
References to the Code and Sections of the Code include relevant applicable regulations (including
temporary regulations) and proposed regulations thereunder and under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, as amended, and any successor provisions to those sections, regulations or proposed
regulations.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
“Collateral Document” means any written instrument other than this Resolution, the Loan
Agreement, and the Mortgage, whereby any property or interest in property of any kind is granted,
pledged, conveyed, assigned, or transferred to the City as security for performance by the
Borrower of its obligations under the Loan Agreement.
“Continuing Disclosure Certificate” means the Continuing Disclosure Certificate of the
City, dated as of December 29, 2010.
“Costs of Issuance Fund” means the fund established pursuant to Section 6.07.
“Costs of Issuance” means, without duplication, any and all costs incurred by the City and
the Borrower in the authorization, sale and issuance of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, all
legal, abstracting, financial and accounting fees and expenses; underwriters’ fees or commissions;
printing and engraving costs; fees, costs and expenses of the City; all fees and taxes required in
connection with recording or filing the Mortgage and all financing statements; and all other
expenses incurred in connection with the preparation of the Loan Agreement, this Resolution, the
Mortgage, any Collateral Document, and any other documents.
“Defeasance Obligations” means Government Obligations which are not subject to
redemption.
“Disbursing Agent” means Old Republic Title Insurance Company and any successor or
assign.
“DTC” means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors
and assigns.
“Facility” means the approximately 130-unit multifamily rental housing project located on
the Land to be acquired and renovated by the Borrower with the proceeds of the Series 2000A
Bonds and other funds.
“Facility Manager” means Perennial Management, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, or any successor manager of all or a portion of the Facility.
“Fee Payments” means the Fee Payments as defined in the Loan Agreement.
“Funds” means any of the funds established under Section 6 hereof, as the context requires.
“Government Obligations” means direct obligations of, or obligations the payment of the
principal of and the interest on which is fully and unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States
of America, or securities or receipts evidencing ownership interests in any of the foregoing
obligations or in specified portions (such as principal or interest) of any of the foregoing
obligations.
“Holder” means a Bondholder.
“Housing Program” means the Amended Housing Program authorizing issuance of the
Bonds.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
“Improvement” means any addition, enlargement, improvement, extension or alteration of
or to the Facility as it then exists, and any fixtures, structures or other facilities acquired or
constructed by the Borrower and located on the Land.
“Independent” when used with respect to any specified Person, means such a Person who
(i) is in fact independent; (ii) does not have any direct financial interest or any material indirect
financial interest in the Borrower, the Facility Manager or any affiliate, other than the payment to
be received under a contract for services to be performed by such Person; and (iii) is not connected
with the Borrower, the Facility Manager or any affiliate as an official, officer, employee, promoter,
underwriter, trustee, partner, director or person performing similar functions. Whenever it is
herein provided that any Independent Person’s opinion or certificate shall be furnished to the City,
such Person shall be appointed by the City and such opinion or certificate shall state that the signer
has read this definition and that the signer is Independent within the meaning hereof.
“Insurance Account” means the Insurance Account so designated within the Taxes and
Insurance Fund.
“Interest Payment Date” means, with respect to the Bonds, February 1 and August 1 of
each year, commencing August 1, 2011.
“City Request” means a written request of the City signed by an authorized officer of the
City.
“Land” has the meaning given such term in the Loan Agreement.
“Loan” means the loan by the City to the Borrower of the proceeds of the Bonds, evidenced
by the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement by the City and the Borrower, but exclusive
of any accrued interest paid by the Original Purchaser of Bonds upon the delivery thereof but
including the underwriting discount, if any, in connection with the sale of Bonds by the City to the
Original Purchaser.
“Loan Agreement” means the Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010, between the
City and the Borrower, as the same may be from time to time amended or supplemented in
accordance with the provisions thereof and hereof.
“Loan Repayment” means a payment required to be made by the Borrower by Section 2.2
of the Loan Agreement.
“Master Disbursing Agreement” means the Master Disbursing Agreement dated as of
December 1, 2010 between the City, the Borrower, the Other Lenders and the Disbursing Agent, as
the same may be from time to time amended or supplemented in accordance with the provisions
thereof and hereof.
“Master Subordination Agreement” means the Master Subordination Agreement dated as
of December 1, 2010 among the City, the Borrower and the Other Lenders.
“Maturity,” when used with respect to any Bond, means 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 declaration of acceleration, call for redemption or otherwise.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
“Mortgage” means the Mortgage, Security Agreement, Assignment of Rents and Leases
and Fixture Filing dated as of December 1, 2010 and executed by the Borrower in favor of the
City, as the same may from time to time be amended or supplemented in accordance with the
provisions thereof and hereof.
“Mortgaged Property” has the meaning given such term in the Mortgage.
“Original Regulatory Agreement” means the Regulatory Agreement dated as of May 1,
2000 between the City and the Borrower.
“Opinion of Counsel” means a written opinion of legal counsel, who may be counsel for
the City or the Borrower, except as otherwise specifically provided herein or in the Loan
Agreement.
“Original Purchaser” means, ________________, the original purchaser of the Bonds from
the City.
“Other Lenders” means Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the Hennepin County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Family Housing Fund.
“Outstanding” means, as of the date of determination, all Bonds theretofore issued and
delivered under this Resolution, except: (i) Bonds theretofore cancelled; (ii) Bonds and portions of
Bonds for whose payment or redemption money or Defeasance Obligations (as provided in Article
VI hereof) shall have been theretofore deposited 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 Holders; and (iii) Bonds in exchange for or in
lieu of which other Bonds shall have been issued and delivered pursuant to this Resolution. 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 City or the Borrower or any affiliate shall be disregarded and deemed not to be
Outstanding, except that in determining whether the City shall be protected in relying upon any
such request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent, or waiver, only Bonds which the
City knows to be so owned shall be disregarded.
“Paying Agent” means any Person designated by or pursuant to this Resolution to receive
and disburse the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds on behalf of the City.
“Person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, limited
liability partnership, joint venture, association, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated
organization or government or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
“Principal and Interest Requirements on Outstanding Bonds” shall mean, for any specified
period, the amount required to pay the principal of and the interest on all Outstanding Bonds
during such specified period, to be determined on the assumption that all Bonds will be retired at
their Stated Maturities except for those Bonds which this Resolution provides must be redeemed
prior to their Stated Maturities from sinking fund payments the Loan Agreement requires the
Borrower to make for such purpose, which Bonds will be assumed to be retired on their respective
Sinking Fund Payment Dates.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
“Principal Payment Date” means the Stated Maturity of principal of any Bond or, for a
Bond to be redeemed on a Sinking Fund Payment Date, the Sinking Fund Payment Date.
“Qualified Investments” means Government Obligations and any other investments
authorized to be made by the City under applicable laws of the State of Minnesota, as such laws
may be amended from time to time.
“Rating Agency” means Moody’s Investors Service or Standard & Poor’s Ratings Group,
and includes any successor to either such Rating Agency.
“Rebate Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.09.
“Record Date” means the fifteenth day (whether or not a Business Day) of the calendar
month immediately preceding each Interest Payment Date.
“Redemption Date,” when used with respect to any Bond to be redeemed, means the date
on which it is to be redeemed pursuant hereto.
“Redemption Price,” when used with respect to any Bond to be redeemed, means the price
at which it is to be redeemed pursuant hereto.
“Refunding Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.08.
“Registrar” has the meaning specified in Sections 4.03 and 4.04.
“Regulatory Agreement Amendment” means the First Amendment to Regulatory
Agreement dated as of December 1, 2010, between the City and the Borrower.
“Repair and Replacement Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.05.
“Reserve Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.04.
“Reserve Requirement” means the least of the following: (i) ten percent of the stated
principal amount of the Bonds, as of the date of issuance of the Bonds; (ii) the maximum annual
principal and interest requirements on the Bonds in any Bond Year, as of the date of issuance of
the Bonds; (iii) 125 percent of the average annual principal and interest requirements on the
Bonds, as of the date of issuance of the; or (iv) $___________.
“Resolution” means this instrument as originally executed and as it may from time to time
be supplemented or amended by one or more Supplemental Resolutions.
“Revenue Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.02.
“Series 2000A Bonds” means the City’s General Obligation Bonds (Louisiana Court
Project), Series 2000A, issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $4,505,000.
“Series 2010C Bonds” means the City’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Louisiana
Court Project), Series 2010C, issued in the original aggregate principal amount of
$_________________.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
[“Sinking Fund Payment Date” means one of the dates set forth in Section _____ for the
making of mandatory principal payments for Bonds.]
“Stated Maturity” when used with respect to any Bond, means the date specified in such
Bond as the fixed date on which the principal of such Bond is due and payable.
“Supplemental Resolution” means any resolution supplemental to this instrument entered
into pursuant to Section 12.
“Surplus Fund” means the fund created in Section 6.06.
“Tax Credit Investor” means Enterprise Community Investment, Inc. and its successors and
assigns.
2.02. Compliance Certificates and Opinions. Upon any application or request by the
Borrower to the City to take any action under any provision of this Resolution or the Loan
Agreement, the Borrower shall furnish to the City a Borrower Certificate stating that all conditions
precedent, if any, provided for in this Resolution or the Loan Agreement relating to the proposed
action have been complied with and an Opinion of Counsel stating that in the opinion of such
Counsel all such conditions precedent, if any, have been complied with.
Every certificate or opinion with respect to compliance with a condition or covenant
provided for in this Resolution or the Loan Agreement shall include: (i) a statement that each
individual signing such certificate or opinion has read such covenant or condition and the
definitions herein relating thereto; (ii) a statement that each such individual has made such
examination or investigation as is necessary to enable the individual to express an informed
opinion as to whether or not such covenant or condition has been complied with; and (iii) a
statement whether, in the opinion of each such individual, such condition or covenant has been
complied with.
2.03. Form of Documents. In any case where several matters are required to be certified
by, or covered by an opinion of any specified Person, it is not necessary that all such matters be
certified by, or covered by the opinion of only one such Person, or that they be so certified or
covered by only one document, but one such Person may certify or give an opinion with respect to
some matters and one or more other such Persons as to other matters, and any such Person may
certify or give an opinion as to such matters in one or several documents.
Any certificate or opinion of an officer of the City or the Borrower may be based, insofar
as it relates to legal matters, upon a certificate or opinion of or representations by, counsel, unless
such officer knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that the certificate or
opinion or representations with respect to the matters upon which the certificate or opinion is based
are erroneous. Any Opinion of Counsel may be based, insofar as it relates to factual matters, upon
a certificate or opinion of or representations by, an officer or officers of the City or the Borrower
stating that the information with respect to such factual matters is in the possession of the City or
the Borrower, unless such counsel knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that
the certificate or opinion or representations with respect to such matters are erroneous.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
When any Person is required to make, give or execute two or more applications, requests,
consents, certificates, statements, opinions or other instruments under this Resolution, they may,
but need not, be consolidated and form one instrument.
An “application” for the release of property, or the withdrawal of cash, under any provision
of this Resolution, shall consist of and shall not be deemed complete until the City shall have been
furnished with, all such documents, cash, bonds, securities and other instruments as are required by
such provision to establish the right of the Borrower to the transaction applied for, and the date of
such application shall be deemed to be the date upon which such application shall be so completed.
Wherever in this Resolution, in connection with any application or certificate or report to
the City, it is provided that the Borrower shall deliver any document as a condition of the granting
of such application, or as evidence of the Borrower’s compliance with any term hereof it is
intended that the truth and accuracy, at the time of the granting of such application or at the
effective date of such certificate or report (as the case may be), of the facts and opinions stated in
such document shall in such case be conditions precedent to the right of the City or the Borrower
to have such application granted or to the sufficiency of such certificate or report.
2.04. Acts of Bondholders.
(a) Any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent, waiver or other
action provided by this Resolution to be given or taken by Bondholders may be embodied in and
evidenced by one or more instruments of substantially similar tenor signed by such Bondholders in
person or by agent duly appointed in writing; and, except as herein otherwise expressly provided,
such action shall become effective when such instrument or instruments are delivered to the City,
and, where it is hereby expressly required, to the Borrower. Proof of execution of any such
instrument or of a writing appointing any such agent shall be sufficient for any purpose of this
Resolution and conclusive in favor of the City and the Borrower if made in the manner provided in
this Section 2.04.
(b) The fact and date of the execution by any Person of any such instrument or writing
may be proved by the affidavit of a witness of such execution or by the certificate of any notary
public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments of deeds, certifying that the
individual signing such instrument or writing acknowledged the execution thereof. Where such
execution is by an officer of a company or a member of a partnership, on behalf of the company or
partnership, the certificate or affidavit shall also constitute sufficient proof of the officer’s
authority. The fact and date of the execution of any instrument or writing, or the authority of the
Persons executing the same, may also be proved in any other manner which the City deems
sufficient; and the City may in any instance require further proof with respect to any of the matters
referred to in this Section 2.04.
(c) The ownership of Bonds shall be proved by the Bond Register.
(d) Any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent, waiver or other
action by the Holder of any Bond shall bind every future Holder of the same Bond and the Holder
of every Bond issued upon the transfer thereof or in exchange thereof or in lieu thereof in respect
of anything done or suffered to be done by the City or the Borrower in reliance thereon, whether or
not notation of such action is made upon such Bond.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
2.05. Notices to City and Borrower. Any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice,
consent, waiver or act of Bondholders or other document provided or permitted by this Resolution
shall be sufficient for any purpose under this Resolution and shall be deemed given when mailed
certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid (except as otherwise provided in this
Resolution), with a copy to the other parties, at the following addresses, or such other address as
may be provided by any party by notice:
To the City: City of St. Louis Park
City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
Attention: Finance Director
To the Borrower: PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership
c/o Project for Pride in Living, Inc.
1925 Chicago Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404
Attention: Director of Housing
2.06. Notices to Bondholders; Waiver. Where this Resolution provides for notice to
Bondholders of any event, such notice shall be sufficiently given (unless otherwise herein
expressly provided) if in writing and mailed, first- class postage prepaid, to each Bondholder
affected by such event, at the Bondholder’s address as it appears on the Bond Register, not later
than the latest date, and not earlier than the earliest date, prescribed for the giving of such notice.
In any case where notice to Bondholders is given by mail, neither the failure to mail such notice,
nor any defect in any notice so mailed, to any particular Bondholder shall affect the sufficiency of
such notice with respect to other Bondholders. Notice may also be faxed to a Bondholder (other
than notice of redemption of any Bond) with the same effect as mailed notice if the Bondholder
has provided to the City a fax number to which such notices may be sent, and confirmation of the
transmission of the notice by fax is received.
Where this Resolution provides for notice in any manner, such notice may be waived in
writing by the Person entitled to receive such notice, either before or after the event, and such
waiver shall be the equivalent of such notice. Waivers of notice by Bondholders shall be filed with
the City, but such filing shall not be a condition precedent to the validity of any action taken in
reliance upon such waiver.
2.07. Effect of Headings and Table of Contents. The Section headings herein are for
convenience only and shall not affect the construction hereof.
2.08. Successors and Assigns. All covenants and agreements in this Resolution by the
City shall bind its successors, whether so expressed or not.
2.09. Severability Clause. In case any provision in this Resolution or in the Bonds shall be
invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
2.10. Construction. This Resolution shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State without giving effect to the conflicts-of-laws principles thereof.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
2.11. Benefit of Resolution. Nothing in this Resolution or in the Bonds express or implied,
shall give to any Person, other than the parties hereto and their successors hereunder, the Borrower
and the Holders of the Bonds any benefit or other legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under
this Resolution.
2.12. No Personal Liability. No covenant or agreement contained in the Bonds, in this
Resolution or in the Loan Agreement shall be deemed to be the covenant or agreement of any
official, officer, agent or employee of the City in its individual capacity, and neither the members
of the City Council of the City nor any official executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on
the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
Section 3. Sale of Bonds; Approval of Documents.
3.01. Award to the Original Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of the Original
Purchaser to purchase the Bonds of the City described in the Official Terms of Proposal thereof is
hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to
purchase the Bonds at a price of $____________ (the par amount of the Bonds of $_______, plus
original issue premium of $_________, less original issue discount of $_________) for Bonds
bearing interest as follows:
Year Interest Rate Year Interest Rate
2012 2027
2013 2028
2014 2029
2015 2030
2016 2031
2017 2032
2018 2033
2019 2034
2020 2035
2021 2036
2022 2037
2023 2038
2024 2039
2025 2040
2026
3.02. Purchase Contract. The sum of $___________, being the amount proposed by the
Original Purchaser in excess of $________________ (the minimum bid amount specified in the
Terms of Proposal), shall be credited to the Bond Fund hereinafter created or applied to
redemption of the Series 2000A Bonds, as determined by the City Controller in consultation with
the City’s financial advisor. The City Controller is directed to retain the good faith check of the
Original Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith
checks of the unsuccessful proposers. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a
contract with the Original Purchaser on behalf of the City.
3.03. Terms and Principal Amounts of the Bonds. The City will forthwith issue and sell
the Bonds in the total principal amount of $_______________, originally dated December
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
29, 2010 in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1
upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and having Stated Maturities on February 1 in the years
and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2012 2027
2013 2028
2014 2029
2015 2030
2016 2031
2017 2032
2018 2033
2019 2034
2020 2035
2021 2036
2022 2037
2023 2038
2024 2039
2025 2040
2026
3.04. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2020 and on any day
thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2021. Redemption may be in whole or in
part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less
than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular
amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each
participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot
the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price
of par plus accrued interest.
[3.05. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Original
Purchaser.]
3.06. Bond Documents Approved. The Mayor and the City Manager are
hereby authorized to execute (to the extent the City is a party) and deliver the Loan
Agreement, the Master Disbursing Agreement, the Master Subordination Agreement, the
Regulatory Agreement Amendment, the Housing Program, and such other documents as are
reasonably necessary in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds
(together, the “Bond Documents”). All of the provisions of the Bond Documents, when
executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution
as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force
and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Bond Documents shall be
substantially in the forms on file with the City, which are hereby approved, with such
variations, omissions, and insertions as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion,
shall approve, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be
conclusive evidence of such approval.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Section 4. Registration and Payment.
4.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by
check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
4.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated
as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest
payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on
the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2011, to the
registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day immediately
preceding each interest payment date, whether or not such day is a business day.
4.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the
City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond
register (the “Bond Register”) in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of
Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered,
transferred, or exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to
the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by
the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the
designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for
registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment
date and until that interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for
exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate
principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney in
writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly
cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the
endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the
requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in
good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose
name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the
Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of
and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or
upon the owner’s order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the
Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees, and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner
thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or
other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen, or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is
destroyed, stolen, or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity
date, and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in
lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen, or lost, upon the payment of the
reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a
Bond destroyed, stolen, or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the
Bond was destroyed, stolen, or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the
Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it and as
provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so
surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation
must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond
prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice
thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of
the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) not more than 60 and not fewer than 30
days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at
the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if
required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any
defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds
so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided
that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
4.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon
merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a
bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is
authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary
charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the
Registrar upon 30 days’ notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event
the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor
Registrar and must deliver the Bond Register to the successor Registrar. On or before each
principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Controller must
transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
4.05. Execution, Authentication, and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Controller and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor
and the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears
on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, that signature or facsimile
will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in
office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for
any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate
of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be
signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is
conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the
Bonds have been so prepared, executed, and authenticated, the City Controller will deliver the
same to the Original Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract
of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Original Purchaser is not obligated to see to the
application of the purchase price.
4.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds
one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such
changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon
the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor
and cancelled.
Section 5. Form of Bond.
5.01. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
5.02. Approving Legal Opinion. The City Controller is authorized and directed to obtain
a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and cause the opinion to be printed
on or accompany each Bond.
Section 6. Payment; Security; Funds; Pledges and Covenants.
6.01. Initial Deposits to the Funds. On the date of issue of the Bonds, the City shall
deposit the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds and other funds of in the following Funds
and accounts:
(a) To the Reserve Fund, an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement (but no less than
$_________) to be provided from funds transferred from the reserve fund established for the
Series 2000A Bonds;
(b) To the Costs of Issuance Fund, an amount designated by an authorized officer of the
City to be funded from funds (other than proceeds of the Bonds) designated by such authorized
officer; and
(c) To the Refunding Fund: (i) the proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of
$___________ (ii) $___________ transferred from reserve fund established for the Series 2000A
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Bonds; (iii) $500,000, representing proceeds of the City Loan; (iv) $500,000, representing a
portion of proceeds of a loan to Borrower made by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; (v)
$550,000, representing proceeds of a loan to Borrower made by the Hennepin County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority; and (vi) $____________ representing Borrower equity.
6.02. Revenue Fund.
(a) A special Fund is hereby established by the City and designated as the “Revenue
Fund.” The City shall deposit and credit to the Revenue Fund all payments received from the
Borrower as provided in Article II of the Loan Agreement (excluding Fee Payments paid pursuant
to Section 2.3 of the Loan Agreement), including specifically: (i) all payments of Loan
Repayments required to be made by the Borrower to the City pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Loan
Agreement; (ii) all prepayments of Loan Repayments that the Borrower elects to make to the City
pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Loan Agreement; (iii) all money paid by the Borrower for deposit
in the Repair and Replacement Fund pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement; (iv) all
earnings derived from the investment of funds in any of the Funds required by the terms of this
Resolution to be transferred to the Revenue Fund; (v) any money or investments transferred to the
City by the Borrower with instructions to deposit and credit such money or investments to the
Revenue Fund; and (vi) all earnings derived from the investment of the foregoing, except as
otherwise set forth herein, which other earnings shall be retained in the respective funds and
accounts identified herein.
(b) On the twenty-fifth day of each month, commencing February 25, 2011 the City
shall apply money on deposit in the Revenue Fund to the following uses in the following order of
priority: (i) to the Bond Fund, one-sixth of the amount necessary to pay the interest on the Bonds
due on the next succeeding Interest Payment Date and one-twelfth of the amount, if any, necessary
to pay principal of the Bonds due on the next succeeding Principal Payment Date; provided, that
on each January 25 and July 25 (commencing July 25, 2011) the City shall deposit in the Bond
Fund the amount necessary, after taking into account the balance in the Bond Fund, to pay all
principal of and interest on the Bonds due on the succeeding Interest Payment Date or Principal
Payment Date; (ii) to the Rebate Fund on January 25 in each year, any amount calculated by any
rebate analyst engaged by the Borrower and the City as required to be deposited in the Rebate
Fund; (iii) to the Reserve Fund, one-sixth of any amount theretofore transferred from the Reserve
Fund to the Bond Fund to pay principal of or interest on the Bonds and not theretofore repaid to
the Reserve Fund; (iv) to the Repair and Replacement Fund, one-sixth of any amount theretofore
transferred from the Repair and Replacement Fund to the Bond Fund to pay principal of or interest
on the Bonds and not theretofore repaid to the Repair and Replacement Fund; (v) to the Repair and
Replacement Fund, the monthly amount then required to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to
Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement; (vi) to the Reserve Fund, the amount necessary to restore the
balance in the Reserve Fund to the Reserve Requirement; and (vii) to the Surplus Fund, the
remaining money in the Revenue Fund.
(c) If on the twenty-fifth day of any month, the balance in the Revenue Fund is
insufficient to make any of the deposits required by clauses (i) to (vi) of Subsection 6.02(b), the
City shall transfer any money then on hand in the Surplus Fund to the Revenue Fund. Promptly
following such transfer, the City shall notify the Borrower of the date and amount of the transfer.
(d) All income derived from the investment of amounts on hand in the Revenue Fund
shall be credited as received to the Revenue Fund.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
6.03. Bond Fund. (a) A special Fund is hereby established by the City and designated as
the “Bond Fund.”
(b) The City shall deposit and credit to the Bond Fund: (i) all amounts required to be
deposited therein pursuant to Section 6.02(b)(i) of this Resolution; (ii) all prepayments of Loan
Repayments made by the Borrower to the City pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Loan Agreement
when any Bonds are Outstanding; (iii) all other money required by the terms of this Resolution to
be deposited in the Bond Fund when any Bonds are Outstanding; (iv) while any Bonds are
Outstanding, any money or investments transferred to the City by or on behalf of the Borrower
with instructions to deposit and credit such money or investments to the Bond Fund; and (v) all
earnings derived from the investment of the foregoing, except as otherwise set forth herein, which
other earnings shall be retained in the respective funds and accounts identified herein.
(c) On each Interest Payment Date and each Redemption Date with respect to the
Bonds, the City shall apply money on deposit in the Bond Fund to pay principal of, premium, if
any, and interest on the Bonds then due.
(d) If on any Interest Payment Date the balance in the Bond Fund is not sufficient to
pay the total amount of the principal and premium of and interest on the Bonds then due, the City
shall transfer any money then on hand in the Revenue Fund, the Surplus Fund, the Repair and
Replacement Fund and the Reserve Fund, in the order listed and in an amount equal to such
deficiency, to the Bond Fund and apply the amount so transferred to payment of principal of and
interest on the Bonds then due. Promptly following any such transfer, the City shall notify the
Borrower of the date and amount of the transfer.
(e) All income derived from the investment of amounts on hand in the Bond Fund shall
be credited as received to the Revenue Fund.
(f) When no Bonds remain Outstanding under this Resolution, if amounts remain on
deposit in the Bond Fund, the City shall transfer to the general fund of the City (or other fund
designated by the City) an amount from the Bond Fund equal to the funds of the City previously
deposited in the Bond Fund and not previously reimbursed to the City. Any amounts remaining on
deposit in the Bond Fund (other than amounts held for the payment or redemption of Bonds) after
any transfer to the City shall be transferred to the Borrower.
6.04. Reserve Fund. A special Fund is hereby established by the City and designated as
the “Reserve Fund.” The City shall initially credit to the Reserve Fund the money required to be
deposited in the Reserve Fund in accordance with the terms of Section 6.01 hereof. There shall
also be credited to the Reserve Fund the money required to be transferred to the Reserve Fund in
accordance with the terms of Section 6.02(b)(iii) and (vi) hereof. At any time on or after February
1, 2020, the City may elect to withdraw all or any portion of the money credited to the Reserve
Fund. The determination to withdraw all or any portion of the funds credited to the Reserve Fund
shall be in the sole discretion of the City.
If on any Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or Redemption Date with respect to
the Bonds there is a deficiency in the Bond Fund, for payment of interest, principal, or
premium then due with respect to the Bonds, and the amounts in the Revenue Fund and the
Surplus Fund are not sufficient to eliminate such deficiency, the City shall transfer from the
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Reserve Fund to the Bond Fund an amount equal to the lesser of the amount in the Reserve
Fund on such date, or the amount of the remaining deficiency on such date. Promptly
following any such transfer, the City shall notify the Borrower of the date and amount of the
transfer.
Amounts on hand in the Reserve Fund shall be invested in Qualified Investments. All
income derived from the investment of amounts on hand in the Reserve Fund shall be transferred
to the Revenue Fund; provided, that no such transfer shall be made which would reduce the
balance in the Reserve Fund below the Reserve Requirement. On February 1 of each year, any
balance in the Reserve Fund in excess of the Reserve Requirement shall be transferred to the
Revenue Fund. In computing the balance in the Reserve Fund, Qualified Investments shall be
valued at face value if purchased at par or at the amortized value if purchased at other than par;
provided that Qualified Investments credited to the Reserve Fund are required to be valued only on
February 1 of each year. For purposes of this Section 6.04, the term “amortized value” means the
value as of any given time obtained by dividing the total premium or discount at which such a
Qualified Investment was purchased by the number of days remaining to maturity on such
obligation at the date of such purchase and by multiplying the amount thus calculated by the
number of days having passed since such purchase and (i) in the case of a Qualified Investment
purchased at a premium, by deducting the product thus obtained from the purchase price, and (ii)
in the case of a Qualified Investment purchased at a discount, by adding the product thus obtained
to the purchase price. Valuation of Qualified Investments as of any particular date shall include
the amount of interest earned or accrued to such date.
Amounts in the Reserve Fund, if any, are held for the benefit of the City. Amounts, if any,
remaining in the Reserve Fund upon the payment in full of all Bonds, or the provision for payment
thereof in accordance with the terms of this Resolution, shall be transferred as follows. Amounts
that remain on deposit in the Reserve Fund shall be transferred to the Metropolitan Council (or in
accordance with written directions received from the Metropolitan Council) in repayment of the
Borrower’s obligations, in an amount equal to the funds of the Metropolitan Council previously
deposited in the Reserve Fund and not previously reimbursed to the Metropolitan Council. If any
amounts remain on deposit in the Reserve Fund after any transfer to the Metropolitan Council (or
to its order), such amounts shall be transferred to the City.
6.05. Repair and Replacement Fund. A special trust fund is hereby established with the
City and designated as the “Repair and Replacement Fund.” There shall be credited to the Repair
and Replacement Fund the amounts required by Section 6.02(b)(iv) and (v) hereof. If the Borrower
has provided all reports and financial statements theretofore due under Section 4.10 of the Loan
Agreement, the City shall apply money in the Repair and Replacement Fund, as requested in a
Borrower Certificate, to the payment of items of maintenance, capital expenditures, and other costs
with respect to the Facility that are approved by the City and, if the disbursement is more than
$5,000, by the Tax Credit Investor. The Borrower Certificate, which shall be submitted no more
frequently than semiannually (or more frequently upon the occurrence of an emergency or
otherwise with the consent of the City), shall identify the expenditures to be made by nature and
amount, shall identify the contractor or other party making the Improvements, performing the
maintenance, or incurring the other costs, as the case may be, and shall certify that the
expenditures are proper expenditures to be made or reimbursed from the Repair and Replacement
Fund. The consent of the City to the request for a disbursement from the Repair and Replacement
Fund shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
If on any Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or Redemption Date with respect to
the Bonds there is a deficiency in the Bond Fund, for payment of interest, principal, or
premium then due with respect to the Bonds, and the amounts in the Surplus Fund and the
Reserve Fund are not sufficient to eliminate such deficiency, the City shall transfer from the
Repair and Replacement Fund to the Bond Fund an amount equal to the lesser of the amount in
the Repair and Replacement Fund on such date, or the amount of the remaining deficiency on
such date. Promptly following any such transfer, the City shall notify the Borrower of the date
and amount of the transfer.
Investment earnings on amounts held in the Repair and Replacement Fund shall remain in the
Repair and Replacement Fund.
Amounts, if any, remaining in the Repair and Replacement Fund upon the payment in full
of all Bonds, or the provision for payment thereof in accordance with the terms of this Resolution,
shall be transferred: (i) first, to the general fund of the City (or other fund designated by the City)
to the extent of any funds of the City deposited in the Repair and Replacement Fund and not
previously reimbursed to the City; and (ii) second, to the Borrower the remaining funds in the
Repair and Replacement Fund.
6.06. Surplus Fund.
(a) A special Fund is hereby established by the City and designated as the “Surplus
Fund.” The City shall credit to the Surplus Fund the money required to be transferred to the
Surplus Fund in accordance with the terms of Section 6.02(b)(vii) or any other provision hereof.
(b) If on any Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or Redemption Date with
respect to the Bonds there is a deficiency in the Bond Fund for payment of interest, principal, or
premium then due with respect to the Bonds, the City shall transfer from the Surplus Fund to the
Bond Fund an amount equal to the lesser of the amount in the Surplus Fund on such date, or the
amount of the remaining deficiency on such date. Promptly following any such transfer, the City
shall notify the Borrower of the date and amount of the transfer.
(c) On May 1 of each year, commencing May 1, 2012, if (i) no Event of Default or
event which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice or both has occurred and is
continuing; (ii) the balance in the Bond Fund is not less than the amount then required to be on
deposit therein; (iii) the balance in the Reserve Fund is not less than the Reserve Requirement; (iv)
the balance in the Repair and Replacement Fund is not less than the total of monthly deposits to
the Repair and Replacement Fund theretofore required under Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement
less any amounts paid from the Repair and Replacement Fund pursuant to the first paragraph of
Section 6.05; (v) the Borrower has provided all reports and financial statements theretofore due
under Section 4.10 of the Loan Agreement; and (vi) the requirements of Section 4.7(b) of the Loan
Agreement are satisfied for the immediately preceding Fiscal Year, the amount on deposit in the
Surplus Fund shall be paid to the Borrower.
(d) Investment earnings on amounts held in the Surplus Fund shall be transferred to the
Revenue Fund.
(e) Amounts, if any, remaining in the Surplus Fund upon the payment in full of all the
Bonds, or the provision for payment thereof in accordance with the terms of this Resolution, shall
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 24
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
be transferred: (i) first, to the general fund of the City (or other fund designated by the City) to the
extent of any funds deposited in any fund or account established under this Resolution and not
previously reimbursed from any other fund or account hereunder; and (ii) second, to the Borrower
the remaining funds in the Surplus Fund.
6.07. Costs of Issuance Fund. A special trust fund is hereby established by the City and
designated as the “Costs of Issuance Fund.” The City shall credit to the Costs of Issuance Fund the
amounts specified in Section 6.01, from the sources specified therein. No Costs of Issuance shall
be payable from proceeds of the Bonds other than compensation to the Original Purchaser in the
form of underwriter’s discount.
The City shall disburse money from the Costs of Issuance Fund to the Borrower or its designee
to pay Costs of Issuance (or to reimburse the Borrower for any expenditure in payment of
Costs of Issuance) upon receipt by the City of a Borrower Certificate, which shall be in writing
and shall contain the following: (i) a statement of the amount and general nature of each item
of Costs of Issuance certified to have been incurred or paid by and requested to be reimbursed
to the Borrower, or certified to be due and payable and requested to be paid to a Person other
than the Borrower; and (ii) a statement that each item for which payment or reimbursement is
requested is or was necessary in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and that none of
such items has formed the basis for any previous payment from the Costs of Issuance Fund. If
the amount on hand in the Costs of Issuance Fund is insufficient to pay all of the Costs of
Issuance, the Borrower shall provide for the payment of such Costs of Issuance out of its own
funds and such Costs of Issuance shall not be paid or reimbursed from any other Funds.
Income derived from the investment of amounts on deposit in the Costs of Issuance Fund
shall be credited as received to the Revenue Fund. After payment in full of the Costs of Issuance
and receipt of a Borrower Certificate stating that all Costs of Issuance have been paid, the City
shall transfer any balance then on hand in the Costs of Issuance Fund to the Bond Fund; within
thirty days thereafter the City shall furnish the Borrower a written report as to the amounts
disbursed from the Costs of Issuance Fund, showing the date of each such disbursement and the
Person to whom it was made.
Section 6.08. Refunding Fund.
(a) A special Fund is hereby established by the City and designated as the Refunding
Fund. The City shall credit to the Refunding Fund the amounts specified in Section 6.01, from the
sources specified therein. Amounts in the Refunding Fund shall be disbursed on February1, 2011
to redeem the Series 2000A Bonds maturing in 2012 through 2030 in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this Section 6.08. Pending such disbursement, the money credited to the Refunding Fund
shall not be invested.
(b) It is hereby found and determined that based upon information presently available
from the City’s financial advisers, the issuance of the Bonds is consistent with covenants made
with the holders of the Series 2000A Bonds and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt
service cost to the City. It is further found and determined that the proceeds of the Bonds
deposited in the Refunding Fund, together with other funds deposited therein as described in this
Section, will be sufficient to prepay all of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if
any) on the Series 2000A Bonds.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 25
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
(c) The Series 2000A Bonds maturing on February 1, 2012 and thereafter will be
redeemed and prepaid on February 1, 2011. The Refunded Bonds will be redeemed and prepaid in
accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the forms
of Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Exhibit C, which terms and conditions are
hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The registrar for the Series 2000A Bonds is
authorized and directed to send a copy of the Notice of Redemption to each registered holder of the
Series 2000A Bonds.
6.09. Rebate Fund. A special fund is hereby established by the City and designated as the
“Rebate Fund.” The City shall make information regarding the Bonds and investments hereunder
available to the Borrower, shall make deposits and disbursements from the Rebate Fund in
accordance with the requirements of Section 148 of the Code, shall invest the Rebate Fund
pursuant to the requirements of the tax compliance certificates of the City and the Borrower, and
shall deposit income from such investments immediately upon receipt thereof in the Rebate Fund.
6.10. Fee Payments. By Section 2.3 of the Loan Agreement, the Borrower has covenanted
to pay directly to the City when due Fee Payments in an amount sufficient to pay the costs and
expenses of the City. Such Fee Payments shall not be treated or considered as pledge to any Fund
for any purpose of this Resolution and the City may on its own behalf enforce such covenant
against the Borrower.
6.11. Investments.
(a) Subject to the provisions of any law then in effect to the contrary, the City shall
invest all Trust Money on hand from time to time in Qualified Investments. Money credited to any
Fund maintained hereunder pending disbursement or receipt of proper investment directions or as
directed herein, shall be deposited to and held in an interest bearing time or demand deposit
account, certificates of deposit, bankers acceptances, daily money market account or other similar
banking arrangement established with a commercial bank, without the pledge of Bonds to or other
collateralization of such deposit accounts. Each Qualified Investment and each other investment
acquired by the City shall mature or be redeemable at the option of the holder no later than five
years after the date of investment.
(b) The City shall, without further direction from the Borrower, sell such Qualified
Investments as and when required to make any payment for the purpose for which such
investments are held. Each investment shall be credited to the fund for which it is held, after
payment of any unpaid City’s fees, subject to any other provision of this Resolution directing some
other credit, but income on such Qualified Investments shall be held or transferred, as received, in
accordance with this Section 6. The City shall furnish the Borrower, not less than semiannually,
an accounting of all investments.
6.12. General Obligation Pledge; Debt Service Coverage. The Bonds are general
obligations of the City secured by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the City and a pledge of
the taxing power of the City. Principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds are also
payable from the revenues derived from the Loan Agreement (reduced to the extent the Bonds are
actually paid out of proceeds of the Bonds and money or investments in the Funds). It is
determined that the estimated collection of the payments under the Loan Agreement will produce
at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due, the principal and interest
payments on the Bonds, and therefore no tax levy is needed at this time.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 26
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
6.13. Registration of Resolution. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a
certified copy of this resolution with the Taxpayer Services Division Manager and to obtain the
certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63.
Section 7. Authentication of Transcript.
7.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed
to prepare and furnish to the Original Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified
copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition
and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits, and transcripts as may be required to
show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and
under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments,
including any heretofore furnished, will be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated
therein.
7.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, City Manager and City
Controller Manager are authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official
Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that
to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate
representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official
Statement.
Section 8. Tax Covenant.
8.01. Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to
time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees, or
agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations
promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its
officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary
to ensure that such interest will 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. To that end, the City will comply with all requirements necessary under the Code to
establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section
103 of the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for
investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and
the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States.
8.02. Procedural Requirements. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any
federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by
this section.
Section 9. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
9.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York,
New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this section, all of the
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 27
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of
Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
9.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar, and the Paying
Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial
institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository
(the “Participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the
Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy
of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the
Bonds; (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of
Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Registrar), of any notice with respect to the
Bonds, including any notice of redemption; or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other
person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar, and the Paying Agent may treat
and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by
the Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of
principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers
with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered
owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, and all such payments will be
valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City’s obligations with respect to payment of
principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No
person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the
Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon
delivery by DTC to the City Clerk of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to
substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.,” will refer to such new
nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Clerk will promptly deliver a copy of
the same to the Registrar and Paying Agent.
9.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket City Letter of Representations (the “Representation Letter”) which will govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds.
Any Paying Agent or Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will
agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter
with respect to the Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
9.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in
the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC
will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the
City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other
registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to
discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City
and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Registrar will authenticate
Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the
transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 28
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
9.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and all notices
with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC’s
Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter.
Section 10. Continuing Disclosure.
10.01. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure
Certificate” means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City
Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it
may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof..
10.02. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City
hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the
Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure
of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of
default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be
necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to
cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
Section 11. Defeasance.
11.01. Payment of Indebtedness; Satisfaction and Discharge of the Bonds. The covenants
of the City in this Resolution shall cease to be of further effect (except as to rights of transfer or
exchange of Bonds herein expressly provided for), and the Bonds shall be deemed to be satisfied
and discharged, when:
(a) either
(i) all Bonds theretofore authenticated and delivered (other than (i) Bonds
which have been destroyed, lost or stolen and which have been replaced as provided in
Section 4.03(h) hereof; and (ii) Bonds for whose payment money has theretofore been
deposited in trust or segregated and held in trust by the City and thereafter repaid to the
City or discharged from such trust) have been cancelled; or
(ii) all such Bonds not theretofore cancelled have been defeased in accordance
with Section 11.02; and
(b) the City has paid or caused to be paid all other sums payable hereunder by the City;
and
(c) the City has received an Opinion of Counsel stating that all conditions precedent
herein provided for relating to the satisfaction and discharge of the Bonds have been complied
with.
Section 11.02. Defeasance of Bonds. Bonds shall be defeased and shall no longer be
deemed Outstanding (except as to rights of transfer or exchange of Bonds herein expressly
provided for and except for the administrative provisions of this Resolution) when:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 29
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
(a) Defeasance Obligations, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on which
when due will, without reinvestment, provide cash at times and in amounts which together with the
cash, if any, deposited with the City at the same time as the Defeasance Obligations are delivered
to the City, shall be sufficient to pay the full amount of principal, premium, if any, and interest
which will become due and payable with respect to such Bonds, on and before their Stated
Maturity or on and before a specified Redemption Date, as the case may be, and if any of such
Bonds are to be redeemed arrangements have been made for giving notice of such redemption at
the expense of the Borrower in the manner provided by Section 4.03(i) hereof; and
(b) an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that the deposit described in subsection (a)
will not adversely affect the exemption from federal income taxation of interest on any Bond; and
(c) if any Bonds are defeased more than 90 days before their Stated Maturity or
Redemption Date, a report of an Independent Accountant verifying the mathematical sufficiency of
the proceeds of the Defeasance Obligations and any cash delivered to the City as described in
subsection (a), to pay the entire amount of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to
be defeased on and before their Stated Maturity or Redemption Date, as the case may be; and
(d) an Opinion of Counsel to the effect that all conditions precedent provided for herein
relating to the defeasance of such Bonds have been complied with.
Section 11.03. Application of Deposited Money. All money, obligations and income
thereon deposited with the City pursuant to Section 11.02 shall constitute a special trust fund for
the benefit of the Persons entitled thereto, and shall be applied by the City to the payment (either
directly or through a Paying Agent), to the Persons entitled thereto, of the principal, premium, if
any, and interest for payment of which such money or obligation were deposited with the City. All
money, obligations, and income thereon deposited with the City pursuant to Section 11.02 for the
purpose of paying the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be applied by the
City solely for such purpose. If the City is unable to apply any funds held in escrow pending
payment of any Bonds in accordance with this Section 11 by reason of any legal proceeding or by
reason of any order or judgment of any court or governmental authority enjoining, restraining, or
otherwise prohibiting such application, the City’s obligations under this Resolution and the Bonds
shall be revived and reinstated as though no deposit had occurred until such time as the City is
permitted to apply all such money to the payment of Bonds in accordance with this Section 11;
provided, however, that if the City has made any payment of principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on any Bonds because of the reinstatement of its obligations, the City shall be subrogated
to the rights of the Holders of such Bonds to receive such payments from the securities held by the
City.
Section 11.04. Final Disposition of Money. Upon the satisfaction and discharge of the
Bonds and the satisfaction of any and all other claims against the City and the Borrower pursuant
to the terms of this Resolution, any money remaining in any fund or account created under this
Resolution and not required for the payment of any Bond shall be transferred: (i) first, to the
general fund of the City (or other fund designated by the City) to the extent of any funds deposited
in any fund or account established under this Resolution and not previously reimbursed from any
other fund or account hereunder; and (ii) second, to the Borrower.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 30
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Section 12. Amendment of Documents.
12.01. Amendment to Loan Agreement, Mortgage, and Collateral Documents Without
Consent of Bondholders. Without the consent of the Holders of any Bonds, the City, at any time
and from time to time, may agree to one or more amendments or supplements to the Loan
Agreement, the Mortgage or any Collateral Document, in form satisfactory to the City, for any
purpose.
12.02. Supplemental Resolutions Without Consent of Bondholders. Without the consent
of the Holders of any Bonds, the City, at any time and from time to time, may adopt one or more
resolutions supplemental hereto for any purpose except to change the Stated Maturity of the
principal of, or any Interest Payment Date of, any Bond, or reduce the principal amount thereof or
the interest thereon or any premium payable upon the redemption thereof, or change the coin or
currency in which any Bond or the premium or interest thereon is payable, or impair the right to
institute suit for the enforcement of any such payment on or after the Stated Maturity thereof (or,
in the case of redemption, on or after the Redemption Date).
12.03. Effect of Supplemental Resolutions. Upon the execution of any Supplemental
Resolution under this Section 12, this Resolution shall be modified in accordance therewith, and
such Supplemental Resolution shall form a part of this Resolution for all purposes and every
Holder of Bonds theretofore or thereafter authenticated and delivered hereunder shall be bound
thereby.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of December, 2010.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA
____________________________________
Mayor
____________________________________
City Manager
Attest:
____________________________________
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 31
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
_________________________, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 32
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSALS
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 33
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
EXHIBIT B
Form of Series 2010C Bond
NOTICE: Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized
representative of The Depository Trust Company to the Issuer or its agent for
registration of transfer, exchange or payment, and any certificate issued is registered
in the name of Cede & Co. or such other name as requested by an authorized
representative of The Depository Trust Company and any payment is made to Cede
& Co., ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE
OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL so long as the
registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
General Obligation Refunding Bond
(Louisiana Court Project)
No. RA- $
MATURITY
DATE
INTEREST RATE
DATE OF
ORIGINAL ISSUE
CUSIP
February 1, 20__ % December 29, 2010
REGISTERED
HOLDER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT:
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a home rule city
and political subdivision organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and
laws of the State of Minnesota (herein called the “Issuer”), hereby promises to pay to the
registered holder named above, or registered assigns, upon surrender hereof at the principal
office of Bond Trust Services Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as Registrar, Paying Agent,
Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, from the source and in the manner hereinafter
provided, on the Maturity Date specified above, the principal amount specified above and to
pay interest thereon from the Date of Original Issue specified above, or from the most recent
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 34
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, payable on February 1 and August
1 in each year, commencing August 1, 2011, from the source and in the manner hereinafter
provided, until such principal amount is paid or duly provided for at the rate per annum
specified above, and at the same rate (to the extent that the payment of such interest shall be
legally enforceable) on any overdue installment of interest, all except as the provisions below
with respect to redemption of this Bond may become applicable hereto. Payment of the
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond shall be made in any coin or
currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for
payment of public and private debts. Interest so payable, and punctually paid or duly
provided for, on any Interest Payment Date, will be paid by check or draft to the person in
whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or
not a business day) of the calendar month immediately preceding such Interest Payment
Date. Upon notice to the Issuer delivered not less than fifteen days before an Interest
Payment Date, accompanied by proper wire transfer instructions and payment of any fees
imposed by the Issuer, any Holder as of the relevant Record Date may elect to be paid the
interest on such Bonds payable on the Interest Payment Date by Federal Reserve System
wire transfer in immediately available funds to any bank in the United States specified by
such Holder which is a member of the Federal Reserve System. Any such interest not so
punctually paid or duly provided for shall be paid by check or draft to the person in whose
name this Bond is registered at the close of business on a special record date fixed by the
Issuer.
This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of Bonds of the Issuer in the aggregate
principal amount of $_____________________ designated as “General Obligation Refunding
Bonds (Louisiana Court Project), Series 2010C” (the “Series 2010C Bonds”), issued under and
secured by a resolution adopted by the City Council of the Issuer on December 6, 2010 (the
“Resolution”). Reference is hereby made to the Resolution and all resolutions supplemental
thereto, for a description of the nature and extent of the security, the respective rights thereunder of
the Holders of the Bonds and the Issuer and the terms upon which the Bonds are issued and are to
be authenticated and delivered.
The Bonds are issued for the purpose of making a loan (the “Loan”) of the proceeds thereof
to PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Borrower”),
under a Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2010 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the
Issuer and the Borrower, to prepay the Borrower’s obligations under the Loan Agreement between
the Issuer and Borrower dated May 1, 2010 (the “Prior Loan Agreement”) and redeem the
outstanding principal amount of the Issuer’s $4,505,000 General Obligation Bonds (Louisiana
Court Project), Series 2000A (the “Refunded Bonds”), the proceeds of which Refunded Bonds
financed a portion of the costs of the acquisition and renovation of a multifamily housing
development (the “Facility”). By the Loan Agreement, the Borrower has agreed to repay the Loan,
together with interest thereon, in amounts and at times sufficient to pay the principal of, premium,
if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due and payable. By a Mortgage,
Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Filing, dated as of
December 1, 2010 (the “Mortgage”), the Borrower will grant to the Issuer a mortgage lien on the
real property comprising the Facility and a security interest in the tangible personal property
located therein (the “Mortgaged Property”). Reference is hereby made to the Loan Agreement and
the Mortgage for a description of the agreements and covenants contained therein and a description
of the Mortgaged Property. The Issuer has, for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds, pledged
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 35
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
and granted to the Holders a security interest in the Issuer’s interest in the Loan Repayments to be
made under the Loan Agreement.
The Bonds are issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the Charter of the Issuer and
the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, and pursuant to the Resolution. The Bonds
are issued in conformity with the provisions, restrictions, and limitations of the Charter of the
Issuer and certain applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes. The Bonds are general obligations
of the Issuer and the taxing power of the Issuer is pledged to the payment of the Bonds and the
interest thereon. Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds are also payable out of
the revenues derived from the Loan Agreement (other than to the extent payable out of proceeds of
the Bonds, amounts in the Reserve Fund and other funds established under the Resolution, the net
proceeds of insurance claims or condemnation awards or the disposition of the Mortgaged
Property). The State of Minnesota and the County of Hennepin shall not in any event be liable for
the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds or for the performance of
any pledge, obligation or agreement of any kind whatsoever that may be undertaken by the Issuer.
Neither the Bonds nor any of the agreements or obligations of the Issuer relating thereto shall be
construed to constitute an indebtedness of the State of Minnesota or the County of Hennepin
within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provisions whatsoever, nor constitute or give
rise to a pecuniary liability or be a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the State of
Minnesota or the County of Hennepin.
The Bonds of each Series are subject to optional [and mandatory sinking fund] redemption
in accordance with the terms of the Resolution.
Notice of redemption shall be published, if required by applicable law, and mailed at least
thirty days before the redemption date to each Holder of Bonds to be redeemed; but no defect in or
failure to give such notice of redemption shall affect the validity of proceedings for redemption of
any Bond not affected thereby. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest on
the specified redemption date, provided funds for their redemption have been duly deposited, and,
except for the purpose of payment, shall no longer be deemed Outstanding under the provisions of
the Resolution.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations therein set forth, this Bond
is transferable on the Bond Register upon surrender of this Bond for transfer to the Registrar duly
endorsed by, or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the
Registrar duly executed by, the Holder hereof or the Holder’s attorney duly authorized in writing,
and thereupon one or more new Bonds of the same series, of authorized denominations, for the
same aggregate principal amount and of the same Stated Maturity and interest rate will be issued to
the designated transferee or transferees.
The Issuer and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as
the absolute owner hereof for all purposes whether or not this Bond is overdue, and neither the
Issuer, nor any such agent, shall be affected by notice to the contrary.
It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required to exist, happen
and be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Bond and the issue of which it is a part, do
exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as required by law.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 36
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Unless the certificate of authentication hereon has been executed by the authenticating
agent by manual signature, this Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Resolution or be
valid or obligatory for any purpose.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 37
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer has caused this Bond to be duly executed by its duly
authorized officers.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Mayor
City Clerk-Treasurer
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Series 2010C Bonds referred to in the within mentioned Resolution.
as Authenticating Agent
By
Authorized Representative
Dated: __________, 2010
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 the applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants in common UTMA........... Custodian .….………
(Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN -- as joint tenants Under Uniform Transfers to
with right of Minors Act........................
survivorship and (State)
not as tenants in
common
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 38
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Additional abbreviations may also be used although not in the above list.
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
______________________________________ the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint _______________________________ 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 OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF
ASSIGNEE
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an
“eligible guarantor institution” meeting
the requirements of the Issuer, which
requirements include membership or
participation in STAMP or such other
“signature guaranty program” as may be
determined by the Issuer in addition to
or in substitution for STAMP, all in
accordance with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOTICE: The signature to this
assignment must correspond with the
name as it appears upon the face of
the within Bond in every particular,
without alteration or enlargement or
any change whatsoever.
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on
the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of Registration
Registered Owner
Signature of
Officer of Registrar
[Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119]
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 39
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
EXHIBIT C
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$4,505,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
(LOUISIANA COURT PROJECT)
SERIES 2000A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on
February 1, 2011
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Bonds (Louisiana Court
Project) Series 2000A, dated May 1, 2000, having stated maturity dates of February 1 in the years
2012 through 2030, both inclusive, totaling $3,665,000 in principal amount, and with the following
CUSIP numbers:
Year of Maturity Amount CUSIP
2012 $110,000 791740 QA4
2013 115,000 791740 QB2
2014 125,000 791740 QC0
2015 130,000 791740 QD8
2016 140,000 791740 QE6
2017 145,000 791740 QF3
2018 155,000 791740 QG1
2019 165,000 791740 QH9
2020 175,000 791740 QJ5
2025* 1,030,000 791740 GP1
2030* 1,375,000 791740 QU0
* Term Bonds
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to February 1, 2011, on which
date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for
redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the office of the Controller of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on or before February 1, 2011.
Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate
in effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your
social security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 40
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
requirement is fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other
financial institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is
any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice or on any Bond.
It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Dated: December 6, 2010.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ City Clerk
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 41
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota (the “City”), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on December
6, 2010, with the original minutes on file in my office, and the extract is a full, true, and correct
copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of the City’s General Obligation
Refunding Bonds (Louisiana Court Project), Series 2010C, in an aggregate principal amount of
$_____________.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this
______ day of December, 2010.
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 42
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Extract of Minutes of Meeting
of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park. Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, December 6 ,
2010, commencing at 7:30 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
* * * * * * * * *
The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals
which had been received for the purchase of the City's approximately $13,140,000 Taxable
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (Build America Bonds – Direct Pay).
The City Manager presented a tabulation of the proposals that had been received in the
manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in
EXHIBIT A attached.
After due consideration of the proposals, Member ____________________ then introduced
the following resolution, and moved its adoption:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 43
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $_________
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2010D
(BUILD AMERICA BONDS – DIRECT PAY)
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is determined that:
(a) the City engineer has determined a need to finance two new fire stations to be
located in the City (the “Project”).
(b) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 (the “Act”) and its home
rule charter to finance all or a portion of the cost of the Project by the issuance of general
obligation bonds of the City. The project costs are currently estimated to be as follows:
Project Designation & Description: Total Project Cost
Fire Stations
Deposit to Project Construction Fund $12,500,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest Fund 386,892.57
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.25%) 164,250.00
Costs of Issuance 85,000.00
Rounding Amount 3,857.43
Total Issue: $13,140,000.00
(c) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the
City to issue approximately $13,140,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (the
“Bonds”) pursuant to the Act to provide financing for the Project.
1.02. Award to the Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of
_____________________________, ______, _________ (the “Purchaser”) to purchase
$_________ Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (Build America Bonds – Direct
Pay) (the “Bonds”) of the City described in the Terms of Proposal thereof is hereby found and
determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby accepted, the proposal being to purchase the
Bonds at a price of $_________ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest
as follows:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 44
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
Year of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
2013 2023
2014 2024
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
2022 2032
True interest cost: _____________%
1.03. Purchase Contract. The sum of $___________ being the amount proposed by the
Purchaser in excess of $_________ shall be credited to the Construction Fund under Section 4.01
hereof. The City Controller is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending
completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful
proposers. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on
behalf of the City.
1.04. Terms and Principal Amounts of the Bonds. The City will forthwith issue and sell
the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (the “Act”) in the total principal amount of
$__________, originally dated December 29, 2010, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any
integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and
maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2013 2023
2014 2024
2015 2025
2016 2026
2017 2027
2018 2028
2019 2029
2020 2030
2021 2031
2022 2032
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2020, and on any day
thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2021. Redemption may be in whole or in
part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less
than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in
Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by
lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 45
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed.
Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
1.06. Extraordinary Redemption: At the option of the City, the Bonds are also subject to
extraordinary redemption in whole, but not in part, at a redemption price equal to par plus accrued
interest to the redemption date, upon or on any date after the occurrence of a Determination of
Ineligibility. A “Determination of Ineligibility” means (i) the enactment of legislation or the
adoption of final regulations or a final decision, ruling or technical advice by any federal judicial
or administrative authority which would have the effect of deeming, determining or rendering the
Series 2010D Bonds not qualified for treatment as qualified build America bonds under Section
54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); (ii) the federal government
discontinues the build America bonds direct payment program with retroactive applicability to
bonds issued prior to the date of such discontinuance (including the Series 2010D Bonds); or (iii)
the receipt by the City of a written opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel selected by the
City to the effect that the Series 2010D Bonds are not qualified build America bonds under Section
54AA of the Code.
1.07. Irrevocable Election to Issue Build America Bonds. In accordance with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009), the
City hereby irrevocably elects to have Section 54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, apply to the Bonds, and to issue the Bonds as Build America Bonds (direct pay option).
1.08. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by
check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated
as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest
payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest
on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2011,
to the registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the
City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds
and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered,
transferred or exchanged.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 46
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by
the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an
attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate
and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds
of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The
Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth
day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the
owner's attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be
promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person
in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond,
whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account
of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes and payments so
made to registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy
and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the
owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds, sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for
any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or
exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated
or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount,
number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of
the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost,
upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection
therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the
Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of
the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or
indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in
which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to
the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be
given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 47
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new
Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice
thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a
copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner
of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the
Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by
publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the
validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption
will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for
the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon
merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a
bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is
authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary
charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the
Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event
the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor
Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each
principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Controller must
transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor
and the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears
on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, that signature or facsimile
will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in
office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for
any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate
of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be
signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is
conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the
Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver the same
to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale
heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the
purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds
one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such
changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon
the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor
and cancelled.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 48
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially
the form as attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.
3.02. Approving Legal Opinion. The City Manager is directed to obtain a copy of the
proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and to cause the opinion to be printed on or
accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. Debt Service Fund. (a) The Bonds are payable from the Taxable General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (Build America Bonds – Direct Pay) Debt Service Fund (the
“Debt Service Fund”) hereby created, and the proceeds of ad valorem taxes hereinafter levied (the
“Taxes”) are hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If a payment of principal or interest on the
Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same,
the City Controller is directed to pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City,
and the general fund will be reimbursed for those advances out of the proceeds of Taxes when
collected.
(b) Construction Fund. The proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in
paragraph (a), will be deposited in a Project Construction Fund (the “Construction Fund”) to be
used solely to defray capital costs of the Project.
4.02. Pledge of Tax Levy. For the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the
Bonds, there is levied a direct annual irrepealable ad valorem tax (the “Taxes”) upon all of the
taxable property in the City, which will be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part
of other general taxes of the City. The taxes will be credited to the Debt Service Fund above
provided and will be in the years and amounts as follows (year stated being year of collection:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 49
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Year Levy
(See EXHIBIT C)
4.03. Certification to Taxpayer Services Division Manager as to Debt Service Fund
Amount. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of the foregoing Taxes will produce
at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest
payments on the Bonds. The tax levy herein provided is irrepealable until all of the Bonds are
paid, provided that at the time the City makes its annual tax levies the City Manager may certify to
the Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County the amount available in the Debt
Service Fund to pay principal and interest due during the ensuing year, and the Taxpayer Services
Division Manager will thereupon reduce the levy collectible during such year by the amount so
certified.
4.04. Taxpayer Services Division Manager Certificate as to Registration. The City
Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Taxpayer
Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63.
Section 5. Authentication of Transcript.
5.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed
to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies
of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and
affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show
the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under
their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments,
including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts
stated therein.
5.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, City Manager and Controller are
authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and
circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their
knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts
and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement.
Section 6. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
6.01. DTC. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the
Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New
York, New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this section, all
of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in
the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
6.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the
Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and
the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 50
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the
“Participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the
Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy
of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the
Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of
Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of any notice with respect
to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any
other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may
treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept
by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment
of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering
transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective
registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, and all such
payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with
respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the
registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the
obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the
effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words
“Cede & Co.,” will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City
Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
6.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds.
Any Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds
will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter
with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all
times.
6.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in
the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC
will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the
City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other
registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to
discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City
and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will
authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will
apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
6.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with
respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's
Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 51
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
Section 7. Continuing Disclosure.
7.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The City
hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the
Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure
of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of
default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be
necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to
cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
7.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Continuing Disclosure
Certificate” means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City
Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it
may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
Section 8. Defeasance.
8.01. Pledges, Covenants, and Other Rights to Cease. When all Bonds and all interest
thereon, have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights
granted by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith
and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds
will remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by
depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If
any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the
Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such
deposit.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 52
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
_________________________, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 53
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of St. Louis
Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached
and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on
Monday, December 6, 2010 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full,
true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $_________
Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (Build America Bonds – Direct Pay) of the City.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this
______ day of _______________, 2010.
City Manager
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 54
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
STATE OF MINNESOTA TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER'S
CERTIFICATE AS TO
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN TAX LEVY AND
REGISTRATION
I, the undersigned Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, on Monday, December 6, 2010, levying taxes for the payment of
$_________ Taxable General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010D (Build America Bonds – Direct
Pay), of said municipality dated December 29, 2010, has been filed in my office and said bonds
have been entered on the register of obligations in my office and that such tax has been levied as
required by law.
WITNESS My hand and official seal this _____ day of _________________, 2010.
Taxpayer Services Division Manager
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Deputy
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 55
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSALS
EXHIBIT B
FORM OF BOND
No. R-_____ $________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 2010D
(BUILD AMERICA BONDS – DIRECT PAY)
Rate
Maturity
Date of
Original Issue
CUSIP
February 1, 20__ December 29, 2010
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation
in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value
received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the
principal sum of $__________ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the
date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year,
commencing August 1, 2011, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of
business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month.
The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable
in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Bond Trust Services
Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and
Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the
prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the
full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2020, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on
or after February 1, 2021. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of
the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are
called for redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of the particular
amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's
interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial
ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus
accrued interest.
At the option of the City, the Bonds are also subject to extraordinary redemption in whole,
but not in part, at a redemption price equal to par plus accrued interest to the redemption date,
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 56
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
upon or on any date after the occurrence of a Determination of Ineligibility. A “Determination of
Ineligibility” means (i) the enactment of legislation or the adoption of final regulations or a final
decision, ruling or technical advice by any federal judicial or administrative authority which would
have the effect of deeming, determining or rendering the Series 2010D Bonds not qualified for
treatment as qualified build America bonds under Section 54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”); (ii) the federal government discontinues the build America bonds
direct payment program with retroactive applicability to bonds issued prior to the date of such
discontinuance (including the Series 2010D Bonds); or (iii) the receipt by the City of a written
opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel selected by the City to the effect that the Series
2010D Bonds are not qualified build America bonds under Section 54AA of the Code.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $_________ all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and interest
rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2010 (the
“Resolution”), for the purpose of providing money to defray the expenses incurred and to be
incurred in the construction of two fire stations, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home
rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable from ad
valorem taxes as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of
rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged
for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy additional ad valorem
taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in taxes pledged, which
additional taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are
issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof
of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond
is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the
registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,
duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in
exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City
will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of
the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same
date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with
respect to such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond
is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota, to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in
the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in
accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so
required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed
any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 57
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond
Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set
forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
(Facsimile) (Facsimile)
City Manager Mayor
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on
the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of Registration
Registered Owner
Signature of
Officer of Registrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 58
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
BOND TRUST SERVICES COPRORATION
By
Authorized Representative
_________________________________
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond,
will be constructed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _________ Custodian _________
in common (Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . . . . .
not as tenants in common (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to transfer
the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution
in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 59
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange Medallion
Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program
("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the
Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance
with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning
the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this Bond
is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 60
Subject: Authorize and Award Sale of Bonds for Series 2010C and Series 2010D
EXHIBIT C
TAX LEVY SCHEDULE
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution approving the execution of the required documents to provide a
$500,000 deferred loan to The Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to assist in funding a
reduction in debt and the undertaking of capital improvements at Louisiana Court.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
From a policy perspective, the City Council is being asked formally implement a component of
the overall refinancing plan for the LC project in order to improve the financial stability of the
Louisiana Court apartments. The specific component in question relates to the approval of a
$500,000 deferred loan which is designed to lower the overall project debt and fund project
rehab needs.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 11th Study Session a proposed refinancing plan was presented that was based on
the direction provided by the City Council at the July 12th study session. The City Council
concluded that the city should proceed with the Louisiana Court refinancing plan including a
shallow rent subsidy pilot program and a $500,000 deferred loan. More specifically, the policy
direction provided by the Council included:
Refinancing: The Council is willing to refinance the bonds sold for the project and has
agreed to extend the term to 30 years.
Debt Reserve Equity Contribution: The Council agreed to contribute any “excess” debt
reserve to the development as an equity contribution. The City will continue to retain an
amount equal to one year’s debt payment in reserve. The remaining amount will be
contributed to the development as an equity contribution. Based on the current
refinancing plan proposed by PPL, this would result in a contribution of approximately
$200,000.
Equity Contribution/Capital Improvements: The Council agreed to contribute an
additional $500,000 to the project either as an equity contribution to further lower the
overall debt on the project or to assist with the financing of capital improvements –
and/or any combination of the two.
Shallow Rent Subsidy Program: The Council agreed to undertake a shallow rent subsidy
program.
The City Council authorized the refinancing bond sale November 15th and the sale of the bonds
is expected to be awarded at the Council meeting on December 6th. This agenda item specifically
addresses the deferred loan component of the refinancing plan. The action required is adoption of
the attached resolution approving the loan agreement and authorizing the City Manager and
Mayor to execute the document.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 2
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has worked with PPL and the other funders to prepare a refinancing plan that is consistent
with the direction provided by the City Council. All other funding sources have been committed.
The City’s $500,000 contribution will be used to both reduce the size of the new bond issue and
increase the investment in capital improvements at LC. The plan results in approximately a $2
million dollar reduction in the debt carried by LC; and $579,000 in capital improvements to the
property. The City’s contribution will be used as needed to support the debt reduction and
capital improvement amounts as noted in the refinancing plan without designation of a specific
funding split between the two components of the plan. The funding resource for the $500,000
deferred loan will be Park Center TIF District funds.
The long term strength of LC is improved by the combination of debt reduction and capital
improvements incorporated in to this refinancing plan. Considerations for assisting with debt
reduction and capital improvements include:
• From the City’s position as the first mortgagee, decreasing the debt owed on the project
reduces the City’s future financial risk should the project ever go into foreclosure.
• By contributing $500,000, the City leverages $1,550,000 in additional funding for the
project from MHFA, Hennepin County and the Family Housing Fund. In addition,
$545,000 from reserves has been redirected to assist in further funding debt reduction and
capital improvements which will contribute to the project’s financial stability for the
foreseeable future.
• In the event that the City would ever need to take back the property, the improved
condition of the physical structure due to additional capital improvements and decreased
deferred maintenance and needed repairs will enhance the value of the property.
The City provided the Louisiana Court project with a similar deferred loan in 2006 in the amount
of $400,000. As discussed previously, that loan will remain in place. The current refunding of
the existing bonds constitutes a refinancing of the project as described in the 2006 loan
document; and, under the terms of that loan agreement any “refinancing” of the property causes
the existing city deferred loan to come due. In order to maximize the funds available for the
improvements and debt reduction, the City is waiving the requirement that the unpaid balance of
the 2006 loan be due and payable at the time of the refinancing.
LOAN TERMS:
City staff, Kennedy & Graven, and PPL have collaborated on the creation of the document. The
City’s risk has been analyzed and discussed by Ehlers & Associates at previous study sessions.
Loan terms include:
1. The amount of the loan will be $500,000. The source of this funding will be TIF from
the Park Center TIF District.
2. Interest rate will be a low fixed-rate (2%), calculated as simple interest. Principal and
interest payments will be deferred until the loan comes due.
3. The loan will come due in 30 years or at the time of sale of the property, or at the time of
refinancing, whichever occurs first. The loan will be secured by a mortgage.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 3
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
The deferred loan will be conditioned on the following:
1. PPL must provide a commitment that they are willing to participate, support and
cooperate with a joint agency committee to plan, endorse, and oversee rehab
improvements at the project, including determining whether a General Contractor must
be hired to oversee construction.
2. PPL must provide a commitment that they are willing to continue to participate, support
and cooperate with a joint housing agency committee to oversee and monitor plans to
reposition and stabilize Louisiana Court.
3. PPL will comply with management standards described in the General Obligation
Refunding Bond’s Loan Agreement between the City and PPL.
4. Loan is contingent on all other proposed funding sources being provided.
5. PPL will maintain community space and have on-site programming for residents.
PPL has indicated that they agree and accept all the proposed conditions and terms of the loan.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continued support of the project is consistent with the City’s visioning strategy and housing
goals including the City’s commitment to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is continuing to work with PPL and the other funding partners to finalize and implement the
financial restructuring plan for LC. PPL has scheduled a closing on the new financing for
December 29, 2010. Staff will continue to consult with Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy &
Graven to facilitate the City’s financial contribution, including the redirecting of the use of the
debt service reserve, and ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the City’s interest.
MHFA has agreed to facilitate a funders group that will oversee the planning and review of
capital improvements that will be undertaken as part of the refinancing plan. The group will
work with PPL to develop a capital improvement plan that all funders can endorse and to oversee
the ongoing rehab improvements. Staff will update the Council as new developments occur.
Staff and representatives from Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers & Associates will be in attendance
at the meeting.
Attachments: - Resolution Approving Agreements between the City of St. Louis Park
and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership and Related Documents
- Loan Agreement
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 4
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK AND PPL LOUISIANA COURT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND
RELATED DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park (the
“City”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On May 1, 2000, the City issued its General Obligation Bonds (Louisiana Court
Project), Series 2000A (the “Bonds”) and lent the proceeds thereof to PPL Louisiana Court
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Borrower”), which agreed to apply
such proceeds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 130-unit multifamily rental
housing facility within the City known as Louisiana Court (the “Project”).
1.02. On May 1, 2006, the City approved additional financial assistance to the Borrower in
the form of a loan in the principal amount of $400,000 to stabilize and improve the Project.
1.03. The Council has now determined that it is in the best interests of the City to provide
certain additional financial assistance to the Borrower in order to further improve the Project and
retain affordable housing in the City.
1.04. There has been presented before the Council a form of loan agreement between the
City and the Borrower (the “Loan Agreement”), providing for a deferred loan to the Borrower in the
amount of $500,000 (the “Loan”). The City will use tax increments from the City’s Park Center
TIF District to fund the Loan.
1.05. The Council has reviewed the Loan Agreement and finds that the execution of the
same and the City’s performance of its obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and
its residents.
Section 2. Loan Agreement and Related Documents Approved.
2.01. The Loan Agreement, as presented to the City, is hereby in all respects approved,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by
the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of such document by such officials shall be
conclusive evidence of its approval.
2.02. The City Manager is authorized and directed to allocate Park Center tax increments in
the maximum amount available to fund the Loan.
2.03. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Loan Agreement
on behalf of the City and to carry out, on behalf of the City, the City’s obligations thereunder.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 5
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
2.04. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized to execute a Note, a Mortgage, a
Master Subordination Agreement and Estoppel Certificate and a Master Disbursement Agreement
among the City, the Borrower and various other funding sources, providing the terms, disbursement
and lien priority of the City’s loan along with various other loans being made in connection with the
Project, the form of which shall be approved by the City’s legal counsel, Mayor and City Manager,
provided that execution of such documents by City officials shall be conclusive evidence of their
approval. The Mayor and City Manager are further authorized to execute any collateral certificates
or documents necessary to carry out the Loan transaction.
.
Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 6th day of December, 2010.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 6
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
LOAN AGREEMENT
(City Funds)
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ___ day of December, 2010 by and between PPL
LOUISIANA COURT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
“Borrower”) and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, a public body corporate and
politic (the “City”).
RECITALS
A. The Borrower requested that the City issue its General Obligation Bonds
(Louisiana Court Project), Series 2000A (the “Series 2000 Bonds”) in the original aggregate
principal amount of $4,505,000, the proceeds of which were loaned to the Borrower, who agreed
to apply such proceeds to the acquisition and improvement of a 128-unit multifamily rental
housing facility within the City known as Louisiana Court (the “Project”) located on certain
property in the City legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”), as set forth in
that certain Loan Agreement between the City and the Borrower, dated as of May 1, 2000 (the
“2000 Agreement”).
B. In connection with issuance of the Series 2000 Bonds, the City entered into that certain
Regulatory Agreement between the City and the Borrower, dated May 1, 2000 (the
“Regulatory Agreement”).
C. The City and Borrower entered into a second loan agreement dated as of _______,
2006 (the “2006 Agreement”) pursuant to which the City agreed to loan to Borrower additional
funds in the amount of $400,000 (the “2006 Loan”), in order to provide funding for additional
improvements to the Project and thereby stabilize and enhance the Project and retain affordable
housing in the City.
D. The Borrower has now requested and the City has agreed to enter into this third loan
agreement (the “Agreement”) in order to loan to Borrower additional funds in the amount of
$500,000 (the “Loan”), subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to provide funding
to pay down and refinance the Series 2000A Bonds (the “Refunding”) and to make additional
improvements to the Project (the “Additional Improvements”) and thereby stabilize and enhance the
Project and retain affordable housing in the City.
E. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the 2006 Agreement, the entire unpaid balance of
principal of and interest on the 2006 Loan is due and payable at the time of refinancing of the
Project. Although the Refunding constitutes such a refinancing, the Borrower has requested and the
City has agreed to waive this repayment requirement in order to maximize funds available for the
Additional Improvements.
F. In addition to the Loan, the Borrower has also obtained commitments for additional
financing for the Refunding and Additional Improvements from the Enterprise Housing Alliance
Fund L.P. (“ESIC”), the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency (“MHFA”), Hennepin County (the
“County”), and the Family Housing Fund.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 7
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
G. The financing provided by other parties includes a loan from MHFA (the “MHFA
Loan”); a loan from the MHFA PARIF program (the “MHFA PARIF Loan”); a loan from the
County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the “County HRA Loan”); and a loan from the
Family Housing Fund (the “Family Housing Loan”).
H. In connection with funding the Refunding and the Additional Improvements, the
parties intend to enter into a 2010 Louisiana Court Master Disbursement Agreement (the “Master
Disbursement Agreement”) by and among the Borrower, the City, MHFA, the County, the Family
Housing Fund, and Old Republic Title Co. (the “Title Company”), and a 2010 Master
Subordination Agreement among the same parties (the “Master Subordination Agreement”).
ACCORDINGLY, to induce City to make the Loan to Borrower, and for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. The Loan Amount. Subject to and upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
City agrees to loan to Borrower the sum of Five Hundred Thousand and no/100ths Dollars
($500,000), or so much thereof as is disbursed to Borrower in accordance with this Agreement (the
“Loan”). The Loan shall be evidenced by a promissory note (“Note”) payable by Borrower to City
substantially in the form of Exhibit B attached to this Agreement, which shall be dated as of the date
of this Agreement, which Note shall be secured by a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) given by the
Borrower to the City in substantially the form of Exhibit C dated as of the date of this Agreement.
Proceeds of the Loan shall be disbursed in accordance with Section 3 hereof.
2. Repayment of Loan. The Loan shall be repaid with interest as follows:
(a) Interest at the simple rate of two percent (2.00%) per annum shall accrue
from the Loan Closing Date (as hereinafter defined) until the Loan is repaid in full.
(b) The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest shall be due and payable
in full on the earlier of the following: (i) ten days after the Borrower makes or allows to be
made any total or partial transfer, sale, assignment, conveyance, lease (except leases to
residential tenant of units within the Project and except transfers of any limited partnership
interest), or transfer in any other mode, of the Project constructed thereon; or (ii) at the time
of any refinancing of the Project, or (iii) thirty (30) years after the Loan Closing Date (as
hereinafter defined); or (iv) upon an Event of Default as described in Section 5.
3. Disbursement of Loan Proceeds.
(a) On the date specified in the Master Disbursement Agreement (the “Loan
Closing Date”), Loan proceeds shall be paid to the Title Company for disbursement to
Borrower for costs of the Refunding or Additional Improvements in accordance with the
terms of the Master Disbursement Agreement.
(b) The following events shall be conditions precedent to disbursement of the
Loan proceeds to Borrower on the Loan Closing Date:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 8
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
(i) Borrower having executed and delivered to City prior to the Loan
Closing Date, without expense to City, executed copies of this Agreement, the
Mortgage and the Note;
(ii) Borrower having delivered to City a copy of the executed Master
Disbursement Agreement and associated Master Subordination Agreement,
providing for disbursement and priorities of the MHFA Loan in the amount of
$550,000, the MHFA PARIF Loan in the amount of $350,000, the County HRA
Loan in the amount of $550,000, the Family Housing Fund Loan in the amount of
$100,000, and limited partner equity in the amount of $1,010,000;
(iii) Borrower having provided evidence satisfactory to City that
Borrower has established a separate accounting system for the Additional
Improvements, for the purpose of recording the receipt and expenditure of the Loan
proceeds;
(iv) Borrower having paid all attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred
by City in connection with this Agreement and the Note; and
4. Representations and Warranties. Borrower represents and warrants to City that:
(a) Borrower is a limited partnership duly organized and existing in good
standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(b) Borrower is duly authorized and empowered to execute, deliver, and perform
this Agreement, the Note and the Mortgage and to borrow money from City.
(c) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, and the performance by
Borrower of its obligations hereunder, do not and will not violate or conflict with any
provision of law or the partnership agreement of Borrower and do not and will not violate or
conflict with, or cause any default or event of default to occur under, any agreement binding
upon Borrower.
(d) The execution and delivery of this Agreement has been duly approved by all
necessary action of Borrower, and this Agreement has in fact been duly executed and
delivered by Borrower and constitutes its lawful and binding obligation, legally enforceable
against it.
(e) Borrower warrants that it shall keep and maintain books, records, and other
documents relating directly to the receipt and disbursements of Loan proceeds and that any
duly authorized representative of City shall, at all reasonable times, have access to and the
right to inspect, copy, audit, and examine all such books, records, and other documents of
Borrower respecting the Loan until the completion of all closeout procedures and the final
settlement and conclusion of all issues arising out of this Loan.
(f) Borrower warrants that it has fully complied with all applicable state and
federal laws pertaining to its business and will continue said compliance throughout the
terms of this Agreement. If at any time Borrower receives notice of noncompliance from
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 9
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
any governmental entity, Borrower agrees to take any necessary action to comply with the
State or Federal law in question.
(g) Borrower warrants that it will use the proceeds of the Loan made by City
solely for the purposes described in Section 3 hereof.
5. Construction of Additional Improvements. The Borrower agrees to the following
construction terms for the Additional Improvements:
(a) Borrower will participate in, support, and cooperate with a joint agency
committee to plan, endorse, and oversee the Additional Improvements, including
participation in the decision as to whether a general contractor shall be hired to oversee
construction of the Additional Improvements.
(b) Borrower acknowledges that MHFA will provide an inspecting architect
who will work on behalf of City, MHFA, and the County in review of work on the
Additional Improvements. Borrower will agree to inspection requests by said architect
cooperate with such review in all respects.
6. Additional Covenants. (a) Borrower will continue to participate in, support, and
cooperate with a joint housing agency oversight committee including, at a minimum, the City, the
County and MHFA, to prepare and implement a long-range plan to reposition and stabilize the
Project.
(b) Through the term of the Loan, Borrower will maintain community space in the
Project, with on-site programming, in a form and under terms mutually agreed upon by Borrower
and the City.
(c) Through the term of the Loan, Borrower will comply with the management
standards described in the Loan Agreement between the City and the Borrower dated as of
December 1, 2010, related to the City’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Louisiana Court
Project), Series 2010C.
7. Event of Default by Borrower. The following shall be Events of Default under this
Agreement:
(a) any breach or failure of Borrower to perform any term or condition of this
Agreement, the Note, the Mortgage, the 2000 Agreement, the 2006 Agreement, or the
Regulatory Agreement and such failure continues for thirty days after City has given written
notice to Borrower specifying such default or breach unless City agrees in writing to an
extension of such time prior to its expiration; provided, however, if the failure stated in the
notice cannot be corrected within the applicable period, City will not unreasonably withhold
its consent to an extension of such time if corrective action is instituted by Borrower within
the applicable period and is being diligently pursued until the Default is corrected, but no
such extension shall be given for a Default that can be cured by the payment of money (i.e.,
payment of taxes, insurance premiums, or other amounts required to be paid hereunder);
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 10
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
(b) any representation or warranty made by Borrower herein or in any
document, instrument, or certificate given in connection with this Agreement is materially
false when made; or
(c) Borrower is dissolved, liquidated, or wound up, or fails to maintain its
existence as a going concern in good standing (excepting, reorganizations, consolidations
and/or mergers into or with affiliates owned by, owning or under common control of or with
such entity or into the parent of such entity, provided the succeeding organization assumes
and accepts such entity's obligations hereunder).
8. City's Remedies upon Borrower's Default. Upon an Event of Default by Borrower
and after receipt of written notice from City, City shall have the right to exercise any or all of the
following remedies (and any other rights and remedies available to it):
(a) declare the principal amount of the Loan and any accrued interest thereon to
be immediately due and payable upon providing written notice to Borrower;
(b) suspend its performance under this Loan Agreement; and
(c) take any action provided for at law to enforce compliance by Borrower with
the terms of this Loan Agreement, the Mortgage or the Development Agreement.
9. City's Costs of Enforcement of Agreement. If an Event of Default has occurred as
provided herein, then upon demand by City, Borrower will pay or reimburse City for all expenses,
including all reasonable fees and disbursements of legal counsel, incurred by City in connection
with the enforcement of this Agreement, or in connection with the protection or enforcement of the
interests of City in any litigation or bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding or in any action or
proceeding relating in any way to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
10. Miscellaneous.
(a) Waiver. The performance or observance of any promise or condition set
forth in this Agreement may be waived only in writing. No delay in the exercise of any
power, right or remedy operates as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise
of any other power, right or remedy.
(b) Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon Borrower and its
successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of City and its successors and assigns.
All rights and powers specifically conferred upon City may be transferred or delegated by
City to any of its successors and assigns. Borrower's rights and obligations under this
Agreement may be assigned only when such assignment is approved in writing by City.
(c) Law Governing; Other Matters. This Agreement shall be governed by the
substantive laws of the State of Minnesota. If any provision or application of this
Agreement is held unlawful or unenforceable in any respect, such illegality or
unenforceability shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect,
and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unlawful or unenforceable provision or
application had never been contained herein or prescribed hereby. All representations and
warranties contained in this Agreement or in any other agreement between Borrower and
City shall survive the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the
creation and payment of any indebtedness to City. Borrower waives notice of the
acceptance of this Agreement by City.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 11
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
(d) Definition of Terms. The terms capitalized herein have the same meaning as
provided in the 2000 Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
(e) Notice. All notices required hereunder shall be given by depositing in the
U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following
addresses (or such other addresses as either party may notify the other):
To City: City of St. Louis Park
Attn: Manager
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290
To Borrower: PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership
Project for Pride in Living, Inc.
1925 Chicago Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Attn: Director of Housing
with a copy to ESIC: Enterprise Housing Alliance Fund L.P.
Enterprise Social Investment Corporation
2801 21st Avenue South, Suite 220
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(f) Repayment of 2006 Loan Waived. The parties agree and understand that the
Refunding constitutes a refinancing of the Project as described in the 2006 Agreement. In order to
maximize the funds available for the Additional Improvements, City hereby waives the requirement
that the entire unpaid balance of the 2006 Loan shall be due and payable in full at the time of the
Refunding.
11. Indemnification. Borrower shall and does hereby agree to indemnify against and to
hold City, and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless of and from any and all liability, loss, or
damage which it may or might incur by reason of or arising from any and all claims and demands
whatsoever which may be asserted against it by reason of any alleged obligations or undertakings
on its part to perform or discharge any of the terms, covenants or agreements contained herein.
Should City, or its officers, agents, or employees incur any such liability or be required to defend
against any such claims or demands, or should a judgment be entered against City, the amount
thereof, including costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall bear interest thereon at the
rate then in effect on the Note, shall be added to the Loan, and Borrower shall reimburse City for the
same immediately upon demand, and upon the failure of Borrower so to do, City may declare the
Loan immediately due and payable.
12. Non-Recourse. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in the Note, the
Loan shall be nonrecourse as to the Borrower, and the City's sole recourse with respect to the Loan
shall be as set forth in the Mortgage.
13. Subordination. City agrees and understands that the priority of the Mortgage shall
be as set forth in the Master Subordination Agreement. City also agrees that the Mortgage is
subordinate to the Senior Loan Documents, as defined in and in accordance with the terms of
Section 5 of the Mortgage.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 12
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the
proper officers thereunto duly authorized on the day and year first written above.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By _________________________________
Its Mayor
By _________________________________
Its Manager
PPL LOUISIANA COURT LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
By: PPL Louisiana Court, LLC
Its General Partner
By _________________________________
Its _____________________________
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 13
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
EXHIBIT A TO LOAN AGREEMENT
PROPERTY
The land situated in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
described as follows:
Parcel 1:
Lot 1, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 512766.
Parcel 2:
Lot 2, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 806672.
Parcel 3:
Lots 3, 5 and 6, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No 777406.
Parcel 4:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 14
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
Lot 4, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 688016.
Parcel 5:
Lot 7, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1024979.
Parcel 6:
Lot 8, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1002765.
Parcel 7:
Lot 9, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1002759.
Parcel 8:
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 15
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
Lot 13, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1002748.
Parcel 9:
Lot 14, Block 1, Louisiana Court, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 749267.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 16
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
EXHIBIT B TO LOAN AGREEMENT
PROMISSORY NOTE
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No.8b) Page 17
Subject: Project for Pride In Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
EXHIBIT C TO LOAN AGREEMENT
MORTGAGE
Meeting Date: December 6, 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:
Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit application for in-vehicle sales and
service for property located at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve or deny the request for in-vehicle (drive-through) sales and
service at the Dairy Queen Grill & Chill, 5001 Excelsior Boulevard?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for in-vehicle (drive-through)
sales/service at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard. The in-vehicle sales/service would be offered by Dairy
Queen, the existing restaurant on the site. The restaurant use is permitted in the C-2 Zoning District;
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for drive-through service.
The drive-through service lane has been revised from its initial design by moving the pick-up
window from the east side of the building to a new “drive through hut” on the south side of the
building. The revised proposal extends the drive-through stacking further to the south and adds a
small addition to the south of the existing building to allow the complete drive-through transaction
to occur on the DQ site. Vehicles attempting to reach the drive-through would still do so via the
driveway between DQ and Miracle Mile or the Miracle Mile parking lot. Vehicles would continue
to exit the drive-through via the shared driveway between DQ and the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site
and turn right onto Excelsior Boulevard. The revisions, which address an issue raised in earlier
Staff reports to the City Council, retain the general site plan while addressing the property line
issue. However, an access agreement would still be needed to allow for exiting from the drive-
through. All vehicles leaving the drive-through would leave the DQ site and travel onto the
Panekoeken/Baja Sol site, where the shared driveway is located. The revised site plan is attached.
Public Process
Neighborhood meetings were held on June 10, 2010 and December 1, 2010; there were nine
residents in attendance in June, and 11 residents in attendance in December. Further synopsis of the
neighborhood meetings is provided below.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the request on June 16, 2010. There
were four residents present to speak at the public hearing; two in favor, and two opposed. Several
correspondence items were also provided. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
application. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting and the correspondence received by
the City regarding this application are attached. The City received the revised site plan on October
5th, 2010.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
CUP Process:
A Conditional Use is a use allowed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance with a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). A public hearing is required for all CUP requests, with property owners within 350 feet
notified in writing of the hearing.
Conditional uses may be allowed by the city if the conditions listed in the ordinance are met, and if
“the structure and land use conform to the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing
neighborhood.” Additional conditions required by the C-2 zoning district are addressed below.
Site Background:
Dairy Queen has been located at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard since 2004, when the building was last
renovated. The 4,360 square foot Dairy Queen building has previously housed other restaurants and
retail operations, and was originally constructed in 1949; at that time, the building was a local bank.
The Dairy Queen (“DQ”) offers customers interior service only, and has 106 seats available in the
restaurant, per the building plans submitted in 2004.
The DQ property is located between the Miracle Mile building (5201 Excelsior Boulevard “5201”)
and the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building (4995 Excelsior Boulevard, “4995”). The Miracle Mile and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol properties are covered under a single Special Use Permit, last amended in
2006. The DQ property is not part of the Special Use Permit, although all three properties (4995,
5001, and 5201 Excelsior Boulevard) are under the same ownership, based on property tax records.
This application applies only to the DQ property. As previously proposed, the DQ drive-through
would have been located partially on the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol property. The revisions to the site
plan allow for the entire drive-through transaction to occur on the DQ site, but still require exiting
onto the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol property.
In 2003, Wendy’s International, Inc., applied for a complete redevelopment of the site, including a
new building with a drive-through service window (Planning Case No. 03-03-CUP). That
application differed substantially from initial site plan submitted by the applicant. It included the
removal of the existing building and modifications to the site, which would have been redesigned to
reflect the needs of a Wendy’s fast food restaurant. The revised DQ site plan, submitted to the City
on October 5th, 2010, incorporates several elements of the Wendy’s site plan, including drive
through operation and location. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Wendy’s
application, and the City Council adopted a Resolution of Denial for the application on June 2nd,
2003.
Traffic Study and Circulation Analysis:
A traffic study for the proposed drive-through use was initially completed by SRF Consulting
Group on June 11, 2010. The study analyzed five intersections on Excelsior Blvd. and also site
access and circulation. The study was updated on August 27, 2010 to better analyze circulation and
pedestrian use of the site. The updated study is attached; the findings are summarized as follows:
• Existing levels of service for automotive traffic are acceptable at LOS C or better
• Future levels of service for automotive traffic are acceptable at LOS C or better
• Most customers would be expected to use right-in/right-out driveway on the west side of
Dairy Queen
• Drive-through customers would exit on the east side of Dairy Queen
• The east drive way would need to become “exit only” if approved; in-bound customer or
delivery traffic would not be allowed for DQ or Pannekoeken/Baja Sol
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
• Drive-through customers who want to travel west on Excelsior Blvd. would have to make a
u-turn on Excelsior at Quentin Avenue South; this should be monitored if the drive-through
is approved; if u-turns become a problem, it may be necessary to work with a traffic
engineer to make modifications to the intersection or prohibit u-turns
• Increased traffic will occur on the internal roadway system
• If low vehicle speeds are maintained on the site, pedestrians should not experience difficulty
walking to the restaurant; however, the following recommendations were included to
increase pedestrian safety:
o Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance of the West Access between the Miracle
Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance with either a bump-out near the
restaurant entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates
the parking area from the West Access.
o In lieu of, or in conjunction of the decreasing pedestrian crossing distance,
emphasize the pedestrian crossing of the West Access using a raised crosswalk/speed
table between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance.
o Provide an improved linkage to sidewalk along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard
by installing either a raised sidewalk or using bollards to physically separate
pedestrians from vehicles on the West Access roadway.
The traffic and circulation analysis above is based on the site plan submitted in May, 2010. The
revised site plan has not been analyzed; because vehicular traffic movements are similar to the
original proposal, traffic impacts are projected to be the same as well.
Zoning Conformance:
The revised site includes the addition of a drive-through to the rear of the building, including an
extended stacking lane and a building addition (the attached drive-through “hut”) to accommodate
the complete transaction on the DQ site. There would also be some landscaping added to the site,
associated with the drive-through lane. Construction of the drive-through lane and hut would utilize
the existing parking lot, resulting in the loss of 6 off-street parking spaces to accommodate the
stacking area and building addition. Fewer parking spaces would be lost under the revised proposal
(six) in comparison to the original site plan, which would have required the loss of 16 parking
spaces.
1. Location of Proposed Drive-Through Use
As noted, the site plan has been revised from the initial submittal to accommodate the entire drive-
through use on the DQ site. Under the earlier site plan, the components of the proposed drive-
through use were not all located on the DQ parcel. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit the use
of multiple lots for a single use, as specified in Section 36-115 (h):
(h) Full Compliance Necessary. Although a land use may be indicated as permitted by
right, permitted with conditions, or permitted as a conditional use in a particular district, it does
not follow that such a land use is permitted or permissible on every parcel in a particular use
district. No land use is permitted or permissible on a parcel unless it can be located thereon in full
compliance with all of the standards and regulations of this chapter which are applicable to the
specific land use and parcel in question, or unless an appropriate variance has been granted under
section 36.34 (underline added).
The City Attorney reviewed this issue and determined that the earlier site plan was non-compliant
with the Zoning Ordinance. After removing the item from the City Council agenda several times,
the applicant provided a revised site plan. Those revisions, depicted in the attached site plan dated
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
October 5, 2010, maintain the complete drive-through use on the DQ site. However, even if the
proposal were constructed under the revised site plan, shared easements would still be necessary to
allow for exiting from the drive-through onto the adjacent parcel.
2. Off-Street Parking Requirement
Zoning Category Parking Requirement
Restaurant – 4,360 square feet 73 spaces
Outdoor Patio – 500 square feet Exempt – permitted accessory
use
Outdoor Patio – 151 square feet 3 spaces
Subtotal 76 spaces
Transit reduction – 10% -8 spaces
Total requirement 64 spaces
Based on the analysis provided by the applicant as part of the revised site plan, there are a total of
28 spaces currently available on the DQ parcel. Construction of the drive-through under the revised
configuration would consume 6 of those spaces, leaving a total of 22 available parking spaces.
Since the Planning Commission reviewed the application, the applicant submitted a draft easement
document that could potentially allow for use of parking on the adjacent Miracle Mile site. The
draft easement proposes shared parking and shared access across the Miracle Mile,
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol, and DQ properties. Shared parking is allowed in certain circumstances
meeting the provisions of Section 36-361 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance:
(f) Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to collectively provide parking
in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The uses must have their highest peak demand for parking at substantially different times
of the day or week, or an adequate amount of parking shall be available for both uses
during shared hours of peak demand. A parking plan shall address the hours, size and
mode of operation of the respective uses.
(2) The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the
number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking.
(3) Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant running with the
land and recorded with the County in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days after approval of the agreement by the City Council.
However, the applicant has not submitted any information to support the conditions for granting
shared parking under 36-361(f) such as a parking plan, information concerning high peak demands
for all uses, or the required irrevocable covenant; for this reason, it is not possible to evaluate the
uses in the Miracle Mile and the DQ use for shared parking. The applicant did submit information
on August 18th, 2010, pertaining to parking at the Miracle Mile and DQ sites; however, this
information did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 36-361 (f), as shown above. The revised
site plan submitted on October 5, 2010 also did not include any additional information pertaining to
shared parking.
While it is possible that some of the spaces in the Miracle Mile parking lot could be available for
use by DQ customers, no such conclusion can be made without a parking plan as specified in
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Section 36-361 (f)(1), and other information necessary to determine whether shared parking as
proposed by applicant meets the conditions required for approval.
To qualify for shared parking, the applicant must demonstrate that the uses under consideration
have differing peak demand times for off-street parking. For example, office uses typically
experience peak demand during the daytime hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM; for this reason, uses
with a peak demand in the evening, such as a movie theater or hotel, could potentially qualify for
shared parking. Similarly, a coffee shop with a morning peak demand for parking could potentially
share parking lot space with a movie rental store with an afternoon and evening peak.
In response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting, the traffic consultant for the
applicant (Wenck Consulting) completed a review of parking demand for the proposed drive-
through use. The findings cite a reduced demand for parking at the DQ site, despite an expected
annual increase in sales of approximately 33%. Despite the potential for decreased parking demand
at the restaurant, the consultant’s study concludes that future peak parking demand is between 32
and 44 vehicles – still exceeding the 22 off-street spaces that would be available on the DQ site if
the drive-through were constructed.
As noted, customers could possibly use spaces on the adjacent lots based on the draft easement
provided if shared parking were approved. However, it is uncertain as to whether such spaces are
available during peak times. Additional analysis of parking requirements for the overall Miracle
Mile center showed an overall parking deficit for the four properties (Miracle Mile, DQ, and
Pannekoeken/Baja) of 52 spaces. This deficit occurs despite a parking reduction of 10% for transit
service on Excelsior Boulevard. This generalized parking analysis of the Miracle Mile area,
updated on August 30th, 2010 using additional information provided by the applicant, is attached for
review. Please note that the generalized parking analysis of the Miracle Mile shopping center was
completed by City Staff for informational purposes only and does not pertain specifically to the DQ
application, as the application was for the DQ parcel only.
Lacking information from the applicant to support approval of shared parking, the DQ parcel is
non-conforming based on the number of current off-street parking spaces available. Reducing the
number of spaces available to construct a drive-through would exacerbate the situation, and be
considered as an expansion of a non-conformity which is not permitted under Section 36-404 (3) of
the Zoning Ordinance:
(3) Expansion prohibited. A nonconformity shall not be expanded in any manner. Expansion
includes the intensification of the character or operation of a nonconformity. Expansion
shall include, but not be limited to, increased hours of operation, expansion of the use to a
portion of the property not previously used, reducing the size of the parcel containing the
nonconformity by subdivision or administrative lot line adjustment, expansion of a parking
area and increased number of employees.
3. Noise and Hours of Operation
Under the revised site plan, the proposed drive-through use would directly generate noise through
the use of an outdoor speaker. The City Code allows for a maximum of 65 decibels at adjacent or
nearby residential property lines from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM or a maximum of 55 decibels at
adjacent or nearby residential property lines from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Noise from vehicles using
the drive-through, including but not limited to exhaust or stereo systems, could exceed the decibel
limits found in the Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
The application did not provide any specific information pertaining to the proposed hours of
operation for the drive-through, although the applicant has stated that proposed hours of operation
for the DQ drive-through and store would be from 10:00 AM until 10:00 PM. Were the drive-
through to be approved, a condition could be included that restricted the hours of operation to these
hours. The applicant has also offered to place a covenant on the property to restrict hours of
operation. Such a document could be filed against the property through a partnership with the
owner of the underlying property, Intercity Investments.
4. Pedestrian Access
The Zoning Ordinance requires pedestrian access between the right-of-way and the primary
entrance to buildings in the C-2 Zoning District, as well as pedestrian access between the parking
lot and the primary entrance. Section 36-192 (12) states:
(12) A separate pedestrian access shall be provided between the principal building and the
public street or a public trail, on all sides of the lot which front on a public right-of-way
or public trail. This access shall be separated from parking areas by curbed, landscaped
islands which have a minimum width of 20 feet inclusive of sidewalk. If a transit stop is
located on any adjacent public street, access shall be located convenient to that transit
stop.
Section 36-361 (k) (6) states:
(6) Walkways. Required parking areas for six or more vehicles shall have walkways
separated from the parking area and surfaced with bituminous asphalt, pavers, or
concrete to provide access from parking areas to the entrances of buildings.
The issue of pedestrian access was discussed by the Planning Commission. The applicant
subsequently provided additional details about how pedestrian activity could be accommodated
(attached). That proposal relied on painted markings on existing pavement. The revised site plan
submitted on October 5th included further detail regarding pedestrian movement, including textured
concrete pedestrian areas in some locations and painted markings in other locations. As depicted,
the proposal continues to provide an indirect and inconvenient route from the DQ on-site parking to
the building entrance, making it unlikely that pedestrians will use it to access the building.
Pedestrians are more likely to take a straight-line route to the door, crossing auto traffic and the
drive-through lane. Additionally, the revised site plan modifies the parking configuration to require
patrons parking in the eastern half the on-site parking to walk across the drive-through lane to reach
the building entrance. This adds to the mixing of auto and pedestrian traffic and increases the
likelihood of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.
The revised plans submitted on October 5th include a sidewalk from Excelsior Boulevard to the DQ
entrance. A sidewalk connection in this location would improve the access for pedestrians coming
to the site from Excelsior Boulevard.
SRF Consulting reviewed the issue of pedestrian access in greater detail as part of the August 27th,
2010 revisions to the traffic and circulation study. The review included several suggestions for
methods to improve pedestrian safety within the site. If the proposed drive-through were approved,
these measures could be incorporated into the site plan by the applicant to improve the situation for
all pedestrians on the site.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
5. Deliveries
At the current time, deliveries take place at the rear of the DQ building. Though the drive-through
hut and vehicle stacking lane will partially impede access to the delivery door, the applicant has
stated that deliveries can be scheduled at times when the drive-through is closed.
There were a number of concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting related to impacts to
deliveries for the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building resulting from the new drive-through structure and
lane. Deliveries for these businesses currently occur in the drive aisle between the DQ and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol building where the drive-through lane is proposed. The applicant provided
additional exhibits depicting the area and has stated that deliveries to these businesses will not be
impacted. The exhibits, attached, show the width of the DQ drive-through exit lane (about eight
feet) and the space remaining for trucks serving the other two businesses (about 16 feet).
Deliveries will impact the circulation in the DQ parking lot and the adjacent Miracle Mile parking
lot at 5201 Excelsior Boulevard; however, information provided by the applicant shows that the
intent is to minimize impacts to business operations through scheduling and appropriate
management of deliveries.
6. Outdoor Seating
Outdoor seating at the DQ is a permitted accessory use up to a maximum of 500 square feet. The
DQ outdoor seating area is approximately 651 square feet in size. For this reason, 500 square feet
of the outdoor seating area is exempt from the off-street parking restrictions.
The outdoor seating area meets all conditions for such a use. The proposed drive-through will not
directly impact the outdoor seating area. The drive-through will indirectly impact the outdoor
seating area by increasing the number of vehicle trips passing by, possibly impacting air quality or
noise levels in the outdoor seating area, and by decreasing the accessibility of the outdoor seating
area by pedestrians and bicyclists.
7. Landscaping and Screening
The landscaping requirement for the DQ parcel is 17 trees and 102 shrubs. The existing use is non-
conforming for landscaping. The proposed drive-through is a substantial intensification of the use
on the site, and should come into greater compliance for landscaping. The May submittal included
the addition of ten new juniper shrubs to the site, located immediately to the south of the new drive-
through. The October 5th revised site plan limits new landscaping to six additional shrubs; left
undisclosed on the revised plan is the variety of the proposed shrubs. The addition of six new
shrubs near the drive-through would result in a total of two trees and 29 shrubs on the site.
The application does not demonstrate how additional landscaping could be provided without further
increasing the existing off-street parking non-conformity on the site. Because the site is almost
100% impervious cover, and because it is fully used for parking, building, drive lanes, and the
outdoor patio, it is not currently possible to address the landscaping non-conformity. The loss of
additional parking spaces on the site for the construction of the drive-through makes it unlikely that
the landscaping non-conformity could be improved in the future, precluding the installation of
required landscaping such as parking lot islands (Section 36-364(f)) or required screening (Section
36-364(e)).
8. Setbacks
As initially proposed, the drive-through lane and operation would have been located on two separate
properties, which was reviewed and found to be non-compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
The building and proposed building addition (found on the October 5th site plan) are conforming to
the setback requirements of the C-2 Zoning District. The C-2 district allows for a zero lot line in
the side yard and the rear yard, and a five-foot setback in the front yard. The DQ building is located
immediately adjacent to the east (side) property line, and exceeds the yard requirements for the
south, west and north sides of the building.
The proposed drive-through area does not conform to the CUP requirements for a drive-through and
stacking area, discussed below. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 100 feet
from any residential properties. The proposed stacking area is located 73 feet from the adjacent
residential area.
9. Architectural Materials
The existing DQ building meets the architectural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
building features brick, glass, stone, and some stucco to comply with the requirements for 60%
Class I materials. The revised site plans do not include elevations for the proposed drive thru “hut.”
It would be expected that any new building addition match the architecture of the existing structure;
as such, it would be required that the drive thru “hut” be constructed of brick, glass, stone and
stucco.
10. Signage
Drive-through signage is included in the total amount of signage permitted for any given parcel. At
24,500 square feet, the parcel is permitted a maximum of 250 square feet of signage based on the
sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The installation of any new signage would require a sign
permit, including an inventory of all existing signage on the site.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements:
In-vehicle (drive-through) sales/service requires a Conditional Use Permit in the C-2 Zoning
District. The analysis below includes a detailed review of the conditions for this use set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Drive-through in the C-2 Zoning District (36-194 (d)(11)):
1. Drive-though facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any parcel
that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use.
The proposed drive-through facility, as depicted on the revised site plan of October 5th, is
located approximately 73 feet from the residential lots to the south. As the requirement is for a
100-foot buffer between a drive-through facility and any residential lot, the application fails to
meet this condition.
2. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all
yard requirements.
The application includes one customer service point. Stacking is available for nine vehicles on
the DQ parcel. The construction of nine stacking spaces would exceed the requirement. If the
proposed drive-through were recommended for approval, the construction of nine stacking
spaces may be a necessary condition of approval due to drive through impacts to traffic within
the DQ and Miracle Mile sites.
3. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have
a significant adverse affect on the existing level of service on adjacent streets and
intersections.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
The traffic study indicates that the addition of a drive-through will not impact the levels of
service on the adjacent streets and intersections, assuming there are few u-turns generated as a
result of the drive-through location. It is expected that the number of u-turns generated from the
DQ parcel will increase as a result of this proposal.
4. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular
and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular
conflicts.
The drive-through facility impedes vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement and exacerbates
the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts on the DQ parcel, on the Pannekoeken/Baja
Sol (4995) and on the Miracle Mile (5201) parcel by:
• Increasing automobile traffic for all of the parcels that contain Miracle Mile, DQ and
Pannekoeken/Baja Sol
• Adding traffic for the drive-through will increase traffic conflicts on the west drive
between DQ and Miracle Mile
• Changing the use of the east drive between DQ and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol to exit only
• Exacerbating the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts in several locations,
including:
− the DQ parking lot and the building entrance would be separated by the drive-
through requiring pedestrians to cross more traffic to enter the store
− pedestrian and bicycle passersby on Excelsior Boulevard and its adjacent sidewalk.
• Creating a greater need for U-turns on Excelsior Boulevard, which may be difficult for
pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles to anticipate or navigate around
5. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial.
Excelsior Boulevard is classified as an “A Minor Augmentor” in the Comprehensive Plan,
meeting this condition.
6. Any canopy shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the principal
structure.
No canopy structure has been proposed as part of the drive-through application. The
architectural design of the drive-through “hut” is unknown, as the plans included no building
elevations for that structure.
7. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the
redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which
it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this
requirement.
The use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Park Commons
area of the City, where major redevelopment efforts have prioritized pedestrian accessibility and
a walkable town center. The construction of a drive-through in this location is not
complementary or supportive of the development of a walkable town center. Page IV-B20 of
the 2009 Comprehensive Plan states:
Future redevelopment of the Park Commons area should focus on adding complementary
land uses that support and complete the “town center” concept and completing the internal
network of streets and pathways that create a cohesive and connected downtown
neighborhood.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
The use does not emphasize pedestrian connections and safety as outlined in the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. From page IV-B21, Goal 1, Policy 1A:
Policy 1-A: Establish unique and cohesive street character for major community streets,
such as Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, and Louisiana
Avenue, emphasizing pedestrian connections and safety, landscaping, decorative lighting,
and street furniture for the use and enjoyment of the public.
The use does not minimize traffic conflicts as noted in the goals and policies for commercial
corridors within the community. From Page IV-B22, Goal 2, Policies 2A and 2B:
Policy 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor development
using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering.
Policy 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential areas.
General CUP requirements (Section 36-365 (b):
1. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations,
redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the
comprehensive plan.
The proposed drive-through is not consistent with or supportive of important principles of
the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those relating to the Park Commons area as a
“walkable” area.
2. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as
a whole.
The proposed drive-through will have a negative impact on the pedestrian environment of
Excelsior Boulevard. A fast-food drive-through has different characteristics than other
drive-through uses, such as a bank drive-through or a pharmacy drive-through. Fast-food
drive-through uses encourage a greater number of automobile trips, making pedestrian
movements more difficult and less safe.
3. It is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter and the zoning district in which
the conditional use is located.
The use does not meet the standard Conditional Use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
for a drive-through use in the C-2 Zoning District (see previous section).
4. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services, or
improvements which are either existing or proposed.
The use will have the adverse impact of adding to the number of U-turn traffic movements
on Excelsior Boulevard for west bound traffic.
5. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties in close
proximity to the conditional use.
The use will have an undue adverse impact on the accessibility of properties in close
proximity to the proposed conditional use, for the following reasons:
• Auto traffic and congestion will increase in the area, both within the DQ, Miracle
Mile and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol sites.
• Driveway access to the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site would be restricted to the east
side of the building.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 11
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
• Pedestrian activity will be negatively impacted to and from the DQ and adjacent
properties.
• Noise impacts may result from idling cards, car stereos, and other automotive-
oriented causes.
6. It is subject to the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by
or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in
the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council.
The plans were prepared by a professional architect and civil engineer.
7. It is subject to drainage and utility plans prescribing locations for city water, sewer, fire
hydrants, manholes, power, telephone and cable lines, natural gas mains, and other
service facilities.
Utility plans are not expected to be affected by this proposal.
8. It is subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use permit
when, in the opinion of the city council, such additional conditions are necessary to
protect the general welfare, public safety, and neighborhood character.
Additional conditions could be added with approval of a drive-through, such as hours of
operation or delivery times.
Neighborhood Meeting:
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, the developer held a neighborhood meeting. Nine neighbors attended.
Question and comments surrounded the reasons for wanting a drive-through – answer: store is one
of two out of 60 without a drive-through and is currently losing money; speaker volume – answer: it
would typically would be at a conversation level; additional lighting – answer one 5’ light would be
added; hours of operation – answer: 10:30 am to 9:30 pm in winter and 10:30 am to 10:00 or 10:30
pm in summer; community involvement of DQ – answer: little league, churches Parktacular, Half
price books, etc.
Neighbors commented that they did not want the drive through; were worried about people in the
parking lot making noise and leaving trash; worried about additional traffic and pedestrian safety;
concern that other restaurants in the area would want a drive-through too, and this is not what is
wanted for the area.
The developer held a second neighborhood meeting on December 1st, 2010. There were 11
neighbors in attendance. The development group reviewed the proposed site plan and discussed
issues related to its construction. The neighbors voiced opposition to the proposal, citing issues
such as the potential for other fast food restaurants to occupy a vacated DQ building and increase
traffic in the drive-through, additional vehicular traffic passing through the neighborhood, noise
coming from cars using the drive-through, increased potential for unlawful activity to the south of
the DQ building and Miracle Mile, the general safety of pedestrians in the area, problems resulting
from delivery trucks serving the DQ and other restaurants in the Miracle Mile, and other general
concerns.
At the meeting on December 1st, the applicant stated that the proposed hours of operation for the
drive-through would be from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM. The applicant further stated that such a
condition, were it to be required as part of the approval for the CUP, would be acceptable;
furthermore, the applicant also offered to amend its lease and record a covenant against the property
to ensure that the required hours of operation would be maintained.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 12
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Summary of Issues:
The Planning Commission and Staff recommendation is based on the merits of the following major
issues identified while reviewing the Conditional Use Permit application:
1. The initial proposal (submitted May, 2010) included a use not located solely on the lot under
consideration as part of the application. The drive-through land and operation would have
occurred on the parcel to the east (Pannekoeken/Baja Sol – 4995 Excelsior Blvd). The Zoning
Ordinance does not permit the use of multiple lots for a single use, as specified in Section 36-
115 (h). For this reason, the applicant submitted a revised site plan on October 5th, 2010.
2. The proposed use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance condition for drive-through uses
to be located a minimum of 100 feet from an adjacent residential lot (Section 36-194 (d)(11)).
Including the stacking spaces that could be required as a condition of approval, the use is
located within 73 feet of the adjacent residential properties.
3. The proposed use does not comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for on-site parking,
which requires 64 spaces (including a reduction for transit use); 22 spaces are provided on the
site. The application did not include a shared parking plan. The lack of available proximate
legal parking increases the likelihood that customers will park in drive aisles, fire lanes and
other areas not expressly set aside for customers, causing traffic problems.
4. The DQ parcel is non-conforming based on the number of current off-street parking spaces
available. Reducing the number of spaces available to construct a drive-through would
exacerbate the situation, and be considered as an expansion of a non-conformity which is not
permitted under Section 36-404 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The shared parking plan submitted by the applicant on August 18th as an addendum to the
original application does not meet the criteria required by the Zoning Ordinance under Section
36-361 (f). To qualify, the shared parking plan should have included information pertaining to
the peak parking demands for uses found in the Miracle Mile, as well as other associated uses
such as the DQ restaurant and the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol property.
6. The proposed use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance condition requiring a drive-
through to be designed in order to not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic
movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflict. It is expected there
will be increased traffic on the site and increased conflicts for vehicles and pedestrians within
the DQ and adjoining sites.
7. The DQ parcel is non-conforming based on the number of trees and shrubs provided on-site,
based on the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the size and layout
of the site, the construction of the proposed in-vehicle sales/service would further reduce the
possibility for bringing the site into compliance with landscaping regulations in the future.
8. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance finding that it
is consistent with and supportive of the principles, goals, objectives, land use designations,
redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Park Commons Area being a walkable area, emphasizing
pedestrian connections and safety and minimizing traffic conflicts;
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 13
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Draft Planning Commission Minutes – June 16, 2010
Revised site plan – October 5th, 2010
Location Map
SRF Traffic Study
Letter from City Attorney Tom Scott
Correspondence and other attachments from applicant
Wenck Memo
Original Submittal - DQ Site Plan and related documents
City Staff - Miracle Mile Area Parking Analysis
Applicant – Miracle Mile Area Parking Analysis
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 14
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
RESOLUTION NO. 10-________
A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
DRF G & C, LLC FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-194(d)(11)
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ZONING CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT IN-
VEHICLE SALES OR SERVICE (DRIVE-THROUGH USE) FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 5001 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. DRF G & C, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-194(d)(11) of the St. Louis Park Zoning Code for the purpose of permitting in-
vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) within a C-2 General Commercial District located at
5001 Excelsior Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to wit:
That part of Section 7, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the Fourth Principal
Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the center line of
Excelsior Avenue distance 901 feet Northeasterly along said center line from its
intersection with the center line of Wooddale Avenue; thence Southeasterly at right
angles to said center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance of 350 feet; thence
Southwesterly parallel with said center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance of 70
feet; thence Northwesterly a distance of 350 feet to a point in the center line of
Excelsior Avenue distant 70 feet Southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence
Northeasterly to the point of beginning. Together with benefit of an easement for
egress (not ingress) as set forth in deed filed as Document No. 2588026.
2. On June 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from
the public, discussed the application, and on a vote of 7-0 moved that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the proposed conditional use permit.
3. The City Council has reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable
performance standards, general conditions and specific conditions, considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 10-18-CUP) and the effect of the proposed
in-vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of
the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic, parking and pedestrian conditions, the effect
on the use, enjoyment and values of properties in the surrounding area, conformance with the goals
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
and finds the following:
a. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
condition that states “drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located
within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use” (Section 36-194(d)(11)(a)) because the proposed drive-through stacking
area is located within 73 feet of a residential parcel.
b. The proposed modifications do not comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements for off-
street parking (Section 36-361(Table A)) for the following reasons:
i. The off-street parking requirement for the Dairy Queen restaurant is 76 spaces;
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 15
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
ii. There are currently 28 off-street parking spaces available on the Dairy Queen
site, causing the restaurant to be legally non-conforming in relation to the off-
street parking requirements;
iii. The construction of the in-vehicle sales/service facility will result in the loss of 6
off-street parking spaces, resulting in 22 off-street parking spaces available for
customers and employees and increasing the non-conformity related to parking;
iv. City Code Section 36-404 (4) states, “A nonconformity shall not be expanded in
any manner.”
c. The proposed modifications do not qualify for shared parking based on the Zoning
Ordinance criteria for shared parking (Section 36-361 (f)) for the following reasons:
i. No parking plan addressing peak parking demand for the Dairy Queen restaurant
or the uses found in the Miracle Mile shopping center was submitted as part of
the application for the in-vehicle sales/service use;
ii. Applicant failed to submit other information necessary to determine if the
conditions for shared parking are met, including information concerning the days
and times for highest peak parking demands for each use proposed for shared
parking;
iii. Even if a shared parking plan had been submitted for Dairy Queen parking on the
Miracle Mile property (the nearest proximate parking area), it is unlikely that the
parking plan would meet ordinance criteria. It is not reasonable to conclude that
the highest peak parking demand at the Dairy Queen restaurant and the retail
stores in the east side of the Miracle Mile shopping center occurs at substantially
different times of the day or week.
d. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
condition requiring the drive-through to be designed so it does not impede traffic or
impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for
pedestrian and vehicular conflict (Sec. 36-194(d)(11)(d)) for the following reasons:
i. The traffic analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that the total annual
transactions at the Dairy Queen restaurant will increase by 33% if the in-vehicle
service is approved;
ii. The drive-through separates the majority of the Dairy Queen’s proposed on-site
parking from the building entrance thereby requiring pedestrians to cross the
drive-through and exacerbating the potential for pedestrian and vehicular
conflict;
iii. Vehicular entry to the drive-through from the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard
and Park Center Boulevard will require customers to travel through the Miracle
Mile parking lot before ordering, increasing traffic in the Miracle Mile parking
lot;
iv. An increase in vehicular traffic in the Miracle Mile parking lot will impair
pedestrian traffic movement and exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts within the parking lot;
v. An increase in vehicular traffic entering the Dairy Queen site via the right-
in/right-out access immediately west of the building will impair pedestrian traffic
movement and exacerbate the potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts
along Excelsior Boulevard and on the Dairy Queen site;
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 16
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
vi. An increase in eastbound to westbound u-turn movements on Excelsior
Boulevard at the intersection of Quentin Avenue will increase the difficulty for
pedestrians, bicycles and other vehicles in navigating Excelsior Boulevard;
vii. Proposed pedestrian routes within the Dairy Queen site show an indirect and
inconvenient route from the Dairy Queen on-site parking to the building
entrance, making it unlikely that pedestrians will use it to access the building.
Pedestrians are more likely to take a straight-line route to the door, crossing auto
traffic. This adds to the mixing of auto and pedestrian traffic and increases the
likelihood of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
e. The existing site does not meet the landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 36-364 (d)) and is legally non-conforming in this regard. There are currently
two trees and 33 shrubs on the site, and the Zoning Ordinance requirement is for 17 trees
and 102 shrubs. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service would increase the intensity of
the non-conforming use on the site without addressing the landscaping non-conformity,
which is prohibited by the City Code (Section 36-404 (3)). Furthermore, it is not
reasonable to conclude that landscaping could be provided without further reducing the
existing off-street parking on the site.
f. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the general Zoning
Ordinance requirements for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (Section 36-365
(b)) for the following reasons:
i. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service is not consistent with or supportive of
important principles of the Comprehensive Plan;
ii. The proposed drive-through will have a negative impact on the pedestrian
environment of Excelsior Boulevard;
iii. The use does not meet the standard Conditional Use requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for an in-vehicle sales/service use in the C-2 Zoning District;
iv. The use will have the adverse impact of adding to the number of U-turn traffic
movements on Excelsior Boulevard for west-bound traffic;
v. The use will have the adverse impact of negatively affecting the accessibility of
properties in close proximity to the proposed conditional use, for the following
reasons:
a. Auto traffic and congestion will increase in the area, both within the Dairy
Queen, Miracle Mile and Pannekoeken/Baja Sol sites;
b. Driveway access to the Pannekoeken/Baja Sol site would be limited to the
east side of the building, with the west side access becoming an exit-only;
c. Pedestrian activity will be negatively impacted to and from the DQ and
adjacent properties;
d. Noise impacts may result from idling cars, car stereos, and other vehicle-
related noise sources.
g. The proposed in-vehicle sales/service use does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirement that the use be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, including any
provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies (Section
36-194 (d)(11)(g)) for the following reasons:
i. The use is not consistent with the Land Use Chapter goals for this area (Park
Commons) to improve pedestrian accessibility and create a walkable town center.
Page IV-B20 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Future redevelopment of the
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 17
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Park Commons area should focus on adding complementary land uses that
support and complete the “town center” concept and completing the internal
network of streets and pathways that create a cohesive and connected downtown
neighborhood.” The proposed pathways internal to the DQ site do not provide a
direct, useful route for pedestrians trying to reach the building entrance.
ii. The use is not consistent with goals for pedestrian connections and safety as
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, including Goal 1, Policy 1A (page IV-B21):
“Establish unique and cohesive street character for major community streets,
such as Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, and
Louisiana Avenue, emphasizing pedestrian connections and safety, landscaping,
decorative lighting, and street furniture for the use and enjoyment of the public.”
iii. The use does not minimize traffic conflicts as noted in the goals and policies for
commercial corridors within the community as provided at Page IV-B22, Goal 2,
Policies 2A and 2B of the Comprehensive Plan:
a. 2-A: Minimize the adverse impacts associated with commercial corridor
development using design, performance standards, site planning techniques,
and buffering.
b. 2-B: Enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential
areas.
iv. The expansion of the restaurant with a drive-through use is not consistent with
the Plan by Neighborhood Chapter development guidelines prohibiting “car
washes, outdoor storage and sales, and similar heavier commercial uses” in this
area (Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Plan, Adopted May 17, 1999).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 10-18-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit in-vehicle sales or service (drive-through use) at the location
described is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
The applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit in-vehicle sales or service
(drive-through use) is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 6,
2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 18
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Excerpts – Official Minutes
Planning Commission
June 16, 2010
3. Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service – Dairy Queen
Location: 5001 Excelsior Blvd.
Applicant: DRF G&G, LLC
Case No.: 10-18-CUP
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, described the conditional use permit
process.
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the existing conditions for
the use. The proposed site plans make predominantly one change to the site which is the
addition of concrete medians to create a drive-through lane south of the building. He
explained that the lot line of the proposed use is not located solely on the property, which is
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The on-site parking requirement of 76 on-site spaces
was an issue, through this proposal there would only be 16 spaces available. Mr. Fulton said
no data was submitted to staff pertaining to shared parking agreements. There is an
expectation of increased traffic and potential for conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians on
the DQ site and adjacent sites. Mr. Fulton stated that one of the goals for this area in the
Comprehensive Plan related to traffic and pedestrian movement. Staff’s review determined
that this proposal was inconsistent with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommended denial based on those issues.
Mr. Fulton introduced Dave Anderson, Real Estate Representative, Frauenshuh Companies.
Commissioner Morris asked if the deficiencies in the application were pointed out to the
applicant and if they had sufficient time to respond.
Mr. Fulton replied the issues were brought forward to the applicant and there was some
correspondence between the applicant’s attorney and the City Attorney. He said he was
unsure why the applicant decided not to make changes recommended by staff.
Commissioner Carper remarked it seemed to be for zoning conformance, as there was a
statement in the code that said full compliance was necessary. He said he understood that
to mean that the drive aisle has to be on their property, rather than someone else’s property.
He asked if there were any mitigating circumstances that might allow them to use the other
property and still be in compliance.
Tom Scott, City Attorney, responded he couldn’t think of any circumstances allowing that.
He said it was really a legal issue and based on the definition of lot and the provision in the
code. He said the applicant may indicate there is common ownership between this parcel
and the parcel that the drive-through would be located on. The legal requirement was clear
and this wasn’t the kind of situation that could look to mitigating factors.
Commissioner Robertson asked if there was a request for a parking variance.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 19
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Mr. Fulton replied there was no application for a parking variance.
Commissioner Robertson stated there were glaring problems and he asked why the
application was considered complete.
Mr. Fulton replied there were a number of reasons why the application was considered
complete. The shared parking was an important issue. Staff addressed that issue with the
applicant and noted that was an issue that would bar a recommendation of approval. No
information was submitted related to the shared parking issue.
Mr. Scott indicated the applicant had chosen not to submit information. It was not required
information and they did not have a basis for deeming the application incomplete. The
applicant had chosen to go forward without including a request for consideration of a
reciprocal parking easement, which was their choice. They chose not to initiate a re-plat and
move the lot line ten feet. Their application was not incomplete in the sense that any
required information that they would require under the ordinance was not there. They chose
to ask Planning Commission and City Council to consider it based on what they had
submitted.
Craig Vaughn, SRF Consulting Group, traffic consultant, stated the purpose of the traffic
study was to determine traffic impacts related to the proposed Dairy Queen drive through
operations, as well as review the site access and circulation related to the proposed drive
through and offer recommendation to mitigate any impacts if necessary. SRF reviewed the
existing traffic operations for the current Dairy Queen as well as the adjacent uses of the site
and adjacent roadway network. He summarized the study findings.
Commissioner Kramer asked for clarification on how the cars moving in and out shared the
same driveway.
Mr. Anderson described the access point proposed for the drive-through. He said the rear of
the Baja Del Sol and Pannekoeken building in this location had some loading facilities in the
rear. There was a potential that some vehicles could turn right there and use that driveway.
That would result in a potential conflict, which was why they proposed making it a right-out
only, with signage.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the primary parking was beside the building or behind the
building.
Mr. Anderson replied based on their operation, the majority of the parking for Dairy Queen
customers was to the west of the building and if that was unavailable, they would park in the
rear of the building.
Commissioner Carper asked about loading at the back of the adjacent buildings and
customer parking.
Mr. Anderson said he understood that deliveries for the adjacent building would occur
outside of the peak use times for the drive-through; however that could potentially be an
issue. He said the likelihood of that occurring might not be significant.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 20
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Commissioner Carper asked if there was sufficient room between buildings for both
customers and unloading.
Mr. Vaughn, SRF, replied that based on his look at the space provided between the Dairy
Queen eastern wall and the western wall of the adjacent building, there was approximately
30 feet. Due to some utilities in that space, there would be approximately 25 feet of width in
that area. With the drive-through, it would leave 13 feet for a semi-truck, which could
create the potential of conflict in that area, particularly when unloading goods.
Dave Anderson, Real Estate Representative, Frauenshuh Companies, discussed the
background of the business. A considerable amount of investment was put into the property.
He stated that it isn’t a typical drive-through. This simplistic design does not work for most
fast-food operators. It is an improvement to allow better customer service. Miracle Mile
shopping center is comprised of four different parcels of property, all controlled and owned
by one single entity. These contiguous parcels function in a cohesive manner. People come
in and cross properties; they park on one property and cross to use the various businesses.
There is a lot of interchange going on. There is not a lot of formality to that use. He went
on to say that recently when the Hoigaard’s project was approved, they recognized the
cohesiveness of the center, but didn’t require any acknowledgement or formalities to the
agreements being discussed now and requiring the Dairy Queen to increase its parking count
substantially. The parking works on this site today.
Mr. Anderson said that field observations show that contrary to some of the points made
earlier, it is multiple parcels but one owner, and they can provide the private covenants and
agreements to allow for the function between parcels. He said they understood there were
additional requirements in terms of shared parking that need to be fleshed out, but they
needed more specifics on what was required today. He said since parking works, they were
not adding square footage or redeveloping the parcel, they were adding a simple
improvement that would reduce the demand for parking on this parcel. Mr. Anderson stated
that they were not creating anything that places a heavy and higher demand on the shared
parking activities that occur on that site. Shared parking already happens on this site. Grill
and Chill will adhere to the agreements and assure compliance with the conditional use
permit. They are a daytime operation. The drive-through operations would be from 10 AM
to 10 PM. The design was very simplistic and a modest adjustment to the site. They take
out some parking, but less parking is required because of the operation. Mr. Anderson
concluded by saying the applicant will meet the requirements of the code that permits in-
vehicle service through a conditional use permit.
Nick Spiredes, Spiredes Reiners Architects, reviewed the Grill and Chill layout from an
aerial photograph and discussed the drive aisle and parking.
Mr. Morris asked if the property owner agreed to the changes in the driveway easement.
Mr. Anderson stated he had a letter from InterCity Investments explaining the conversations
they were having about providing the private agreements for ingress, egress and parking.
The letter was given to the Chair for the record.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 21
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Jim Benshoof, Benshoof and Associates, traffic engineering consultant for applicant spoke
about three issues raised in the staff report: 1) internal circulation; 2) potential U-turns on
Excelsior Blvd; and, 3) parking.
Chair Person asked for copies of the materials from Mr. Benshoof. The Commission
recessed for 5 minutes to allow for copying of the document.
Commissioner Carper asked about the delivery trucks and the proximity of the drive aisle.
Mr. Benshoof agreed with Mr. Vaughn’s comments, according to the site plan, there is just
over 30 feet total between the building walls. There is a sidewalk, reducing it to about 25
feet. The drive-through operations vehicles would be using 10-12 feet, which would leave
approximately 13-15 feet, which he felt was sufficient for passage of any vehicle. It was
wider than a standard traffic lane that was twelve feet wide. It would not be large enough
for the angling of a truck. Passage would be OK.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Benshoof spoke about delivery trucks and the drive aisle.
Commissioner Carper asked how deliveries were made to the business.
Jill Carlson, Director of Operations, Fourteen Foods, replied all deliveries are done in the
morning prior to opening along the drive-through area or in the back where the parking
would start for employee parking. The entrance where food is delivered is at the back of the
building. Deliveries are not accepted after 11:00 a.m.
Commissioner Carper asked why they decided on a curved drive aisle rather than straight-in
drive aisle from the south.
Mr. Spiredes responded they were trying to minimize the impact and dimension from any
stacking to the neighborhood to the south and make it as compact as possible, while meeting
the requirements of the drive-through component of the code.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the CUP stayed with the property.
Mr. Fulton replied that was correct, the CUP goes with the land. It would be a drive-through
for a fast food restaurant, subject to conditions approved by the City Council.
Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, the attorney representing the applicant, stated he wished to
address the lot issue. They looked at the City Code, and asked if the access drive along the
building on the lot that was owned by the landlord was prohibited by City Code, and it was
not. They met with staff and the City Attorney and understood an alternative to that would
be to re-plat the entire center. They looked at that and talked to the landlord. That would
involve everybody who has a legal interest in the property. They put this in the context of
trying to cut a window in the building to provide drive-through service. They were trying to
improve the business viability of this property by adding a drive-through. They needed to
balance the idea of platting a property that had never been platted before, all of the easement
and legal interest issues and they took the path of least resistance, which was to provide an
access drive.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 22
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Mr. Griffith said he and the City Attorney had a differing opinion. He cited the following
from City Code: “no land use is permitted or permissible on a parcel unless it can be located
thereon in full compliance with all of the standards and regulations of this chapter.” He said
if that one line in the City Code prohibited access drives as they were proposing, then
literally hundreds of properties that shared access would be prohibited and he didn’t believe
they could read it that narrowly. If ultimately they can solve the other issues regarding
pedestrian safety and traffic and parking, which he believed they could, then he thought they
could also address the easement issue. They had a landlord that was willing to cooperate.
He said the next point regarded stacking and he believed that was met. They had heard from
Mr. Benshoof and Mr. Vaughn and traffic operations were acceptable. They firmly believed
that putting in a drive-through window was an opportunity to provide better definition for
the safety of customers and for pedestrians and others using the Miracle Mile Center.
Striping will be provided to slow vehicles down and show pedestrians where they cross. U-
turns can be safely accommodated at Quentin Avenue. He said putting a drive-through
window in a Dairy Queen is not a redevelopment. The objective to provide for pedestrian
safety and minimize conflicts was a good one. He believed they demonstrated that this
application provides that opportunity to do some modest enhancements to eliminate some of
the conflicts that already occur on-site. With regard to the general CUP requirements, if they
provide a shared parking agreement they could address the parking. If they can provide an
easement for access, all of the improvements on the site are located within the lot, the only
thing that is off the lot, is the line that provides for access around the building, something
that occurs on properties all over St. Louis Park. All of those things can be done by
reasonable conditions attached to the conditional use permit. Mr. Griffith said they strongly
believe this is in compliance with the City Code.
Commissioner Morris asked why the applicant didn’t respond to the City in writing instead
of giving an oral presentation at the last moment.
Mr. Griffith replied they responded in writing to the City Attorney describing their position.
He provided a written response. It was their opportunity at the public hearing to make it
record. They will continue to communicate throughout the process.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Rose Doherty, 4968 W. 40th, indicated traffic was a problem on Excelsior Blvd. and the
surrounding streets. During peak hours, the Miracle Mile parking lot and Excelsior Blvd. is
at a stand still. Cars exiting Dairy Queen would have a difficult time getting into the left
turn lane on Quentin. People will take a right on Quentin because of this. People parking in
the Miracle Mile parking lot would have a difficult time crossing to the Dairy Queen
entrance. Ms. Doherty said she would like the Commission to consider whether a drive
through promotes a walkable community. Streets behind Miracle Mile would be greatly
affected. There are no sidewalks on 40th and it is used by pedestrians. Ms. Doherty also
wanted the Commission to consider if they granted the CUP, it would set a precedent for
Excelsior Blvd. She didn’t want to hear car radios and people ordering through a drive
through at her home or people throwing garbage over her fence. Groups already gather in
the parking lot behind her house and she didn’t want to encourage more of the same. She
didn’t understand why it was the neighborhood’s responsibility to see that Dairy Queen was
profitable. She concluded by saying that in 2003 Dairy Queen knew the neighborhood was
not in favor of a drive-through when Wendy’s went through the process. A lot of the same
issues with the Wendy’s application are still the same today. Traffic and parking is worse.
Ms. Doherty urged the Commission to vote against the CUP request.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 23
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Bill Gleason, 2825 Kentucky, said he is part of a family business in St. Louis Park and is
also a resident. He stated they have a fundraising partnership with Little League. He is part
of a family business in St. Louis Park and is also a resident. One of the things they needed
to look at was if this was a viable business, was good for the community and did it provide
jobs. He said he coaches baseball and hockey and has taken kids to the Dairy Queen after
school events. It is a good gathering place. He stated he had never seen a bad crowd at
Diary Queen. They were giving to the community and were helping out.
Eric Bargman, 4305 W. 38th St, expressed concerns about safety. He said while it was a low
volume of cars, with a drive-through, speed was of the essence. People are distracted,
moving quickly and pulling out from the drive-through. While individuals may be able to
get over, during rush hour it would be very difficult to make the U-Turns, and they would be
moving to other areas. He said he struggled with this from the basic perspective of the
broader development plan for the region in terms of building a pedestrian friendly area and
the idea of the Excelsior and Grand development having higher end restaurants and moving
in fast food restaurants right across the street. He couldn’t see that benefitting the Excelsior
and Grand development.
Rob Page, 3750 Huntington, said he didn’t see issues with the U-turns discussed. Regarding
walkability, he said cars would only be going 3 m.p.h. A speed bump could be installed to
alleviate neighborhood concern. He said in terms of noise, the speakers face east and it was
almost 200 feet from houses, so he didn’t think people would hear noise from their yards
very much. Mr. Page said regarding precedence, there weren’t too many lots that would
have a 100 ft. setback, which was required for a drive-through. He said it was a wonderful
building and people should be careful what they wish for because if Dairy Queen leaves they
don’t know what would come in. It could be better, but it could be something much worse
for the neighborhood.
Chair Person acknowledged all emails, letters and phone calls that had been received and
asked that they be included in the record.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Chair Kramer asked how this was different from Wendy’s request which was turned down
and why this could be approved.
Mr. Fulton replied that every application is distinct. In this case, although it is the same site,
the Wendy’s proposal was to remove what had previously been the Sage Hen Restaurant
building, put in a new building and drive-through. Because that would have been a complete
redevelopment of the site, it would have had to come into complete compliance with the
zoning ordinance. That was denied by City Council. Dairy Queen renovated the existing
restaurant building, so there were still some of the non-conformities. He said it is a very
distinct proposal from the Wendy’s proposal, particularly related to the lot line issue.
Commissioner Morris stated the Commission has a long standing policy to receive staff
reports the Friday before the meeting. He said when an applicant comes to a meeting and
presents graphs, statistics, and expert testimony, it was extremely difficult to follow, to take
notes, to read, and photocopy documents that had just been handed to them. Normally under
those circumstances the request would just be held over and tabled to the next meeting in
order to have time to consider what had just been presented. He said normally he would
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 24
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
recommend tabling, but the City Attorney had laid out specific conditions that were not
being met. They were talking about violations to the zoning code and non-compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. He didn’t see them specifically address the violation other than
that they disagreed with it. Commissioner Morris said he didn’t think it was necessary to
continue to get more information. He thought the staff presentation and City Attorney
comments were clear enough for him to decide.
Commissioner Robertson noted his first question to staff was if this application was
incomplete. This was not just an access aisle, it was being used as part of the operation of
the building. If there was a door swinging over the property line, they would need an
encroachment permit. The property line is the property line even though it was a separate
lot and it is owned by the same people until they had a written agreement saying that there
was a shared use, the same with the parking. He said he wanted to see the agreement. He
believed it was premature. He was not in opposition to the overall concept. There were
some safety issues, but this was an urban setting with traffic and pedestrians. He said he did
not think they could legally approve this. There were too many unmet criteria and he felt
there was no reason to continue.
Commissioner Carper believed there were pros and cons, however he would vote no because
of the ordinance that says no land use is permitted on another parcel. The second reason was
because of the off-street parking requirement. He said the applicant had plenty of time to
postpone this while they got the shared requirement.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she supported the City Attorney and staff in their
observations and supported the report as written and would vote for denial. She believed
there were a lot more traffic issues than were being discussed. She said anyone who lives,
works and shops in this area knew the real traffic issues in the area.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 25
EXCELSIO
R
B
L
V
D
QUENTIN AVE S40TH ST WPARK NICOLLET BLVDVALLACH
E
R
A
V
EPRINCE
TON
AVE
S
PARK COMMONS DR
EXCELSI
O
R
BL
V
D
5001 Excelsior Boulevard - Dairy Queen Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Sales
June 16, 2010
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
210 Feet
O
R-2
C-1
R-2C-2
C-2
MX
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 26
SRF No. 010 7161
MEMORANDUM
TO: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Adam Fulton, AICP, Planner
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FROM: Craig Vaughn, P.E., PTOE, Senior Associate
John Hagen, P.E., PTOE, Senior Associate
DATE: June 11, 2010
Updated September 1, 2010
SUBJECT: DAIRY QUEEN TRAFFIC STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As requested, we have completed a traffic study for the proposed drive-thru addition to the
existing Dairy Queen restaurant in the Miracle Mile shopping center in the southeast quadrant of
Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main
objective of this study is to analyze existing and future (one year after completion) traffic
operations to determine potential impacts related to the proposed drive-thru operations. A key
component of this study will be site circulation (across the Miracle Mile development) and how
the drive-thru operations may impact this circulation.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The purpose of the traffic analysis is to determine the traffic impacts at the key intersections and
driveways within the study segment of Excelsior Boulevard, related to the proposed drive-thru
addition to the existing Dairy Queen restaurant. This includes an operations analysis during the
p.m. peak hour of the adjacent streets for existing and future year 2011 build conditions (one
year after construction of the drive-thru). A site access and circulation analysis was also
conducted.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 27
Syr.
R.
C. P.
C. P. R
.
S
y
s
.
W.
W.
W.
ST .ST.
37
DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.HUNTIN GTONAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.W.44th
ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
W.37th ST.
W.39th ST.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.
AVE.XENWOODBROOKSIDEBRUNSWICKCOLORADOAVE.AVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.
M EA
D
OWBROOKBLVD.DAKOTAAVE.W. 39th ST.
ST.DAKOTAAVE.W.35th
ST.AVE.COLORA DOLYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.EDGEWOODAVE.VER MONT
39th39th
11.BELT LINEBLVD.BLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
V ALLAC
H
E
R
AVE.PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.CA MBRI DGE AVE.WOOLI
B
R
A
R
Y
LA
.HAMPSHIREAVE.LOUISIANAAVE.40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W. 41st ST.
W.41 st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
O
R
W. 39 th
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.E.CLETO WNES
CIR.RD.KSAVE.AVE.BLVD.RD.AVE.LA.NORTHAVE.DIVISION ST.
12.CIRVORKDGE ST.B RIDGEAVE.W.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.EATONCURVEWOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.W.33 ST.XENWOODYOSEMITEZARTHANAVE.AVE.34 ST.LAKEBRUNSWICKEDGE33 ST.GEORGIAA
V
E
.
ST.
L
A
.
PA RK GLEN
R
D
.BELTLINEBLVD.rd
th
rd
stW. 34th ST.
RANDA
L
L
HUNTINGTON AVE.3
25
100
7
107161
June 2010
Project Location
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 1NORTHNorthPROJECT
LOCATION
H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 1_location.cdrCity Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 28
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 3 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Existing Conditions
Traffic operations for existing conditions were analyzed at the following key intersections:
1. Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard
2. Right-In/Right-Out West Access and Excelsior Boulevard
3. Right-In/Right-Out East Access and Excelsior Boulevard
4. Full Access and Excelsior Boulevard
5. Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
Current traffic controls include signalization at the Excelsior Boulevard intersections of Miracle
Mile and Quentin Avenue. The remaining three key intersections (site access driveways)
analyzed as part of this study, are side-street stop-controlled. SRF Consulting Group conducted
turning movement counts during the p.m. peak hour at the three site access driveways. Counts
for the Excelsior Boulevard intersections of Miracle Mile and Quentin Avenue were conducted
in June 2009 by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Figure 2 displays the
existing intersection geometrics and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes.
It should be noted that the p.m. peak hour was selected as the desired analysis timeframe since
previous studies of the Miracle Mile shopping center determined it to represent the worst-case
scenario from a traffic analysis standpoint, since more vehicles use both Excelsior Boulevard and
the Miracle Mile shopping center driveways during the p.m. peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) than
other peak periods on an average weekday.
A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the p.m. peak hour at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. Signalized
intersections were analyzed using Synchro with the SimTraffic software. Unsignalized
intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results
identify a Level of Service (LOS) that indicates the quality of traffic flow through an
intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the
best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an
intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. LOS A through D
are generally considered acceptable by drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating
at, or very near its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 29
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
W.
ST.DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
37th ST.
W.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.XENWOODBROOKSIDEAVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.LYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.VER MONT
39thBELT LINEBLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
VALLA
C
H
E
R
AV E .PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.MBRI DGE AVE.WOO40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W.st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
OR
W. 39t
h
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.3
100NORTHNorth
68
851
53
0
883
9
0
33
729
50
136
978
132
4
20
1139
9
20
76
968
68 11917101 6603 741828 81 1535 2 010 37 1315
955
955
1170
1
1108
6 2 63 LEGEND
XX = P.M. Peak Hour
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Control 17 107161
June 2010
Existing Conditions
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 2H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 2_existing.cdrCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Quentin AvenueCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Full AccessPark Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)
CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceRight-In/Right-Out West AccessCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Miracle MileRight-In/Right-Out East Access1
3
2
4
5
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 30
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 5 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Results of the analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections currently operate at an
acceptable LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour. It is important to note that existing signal
timing, obtained from Hennepin County, was used for the signalized intersections.
Table 1
Existing P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service
P.M. Peak
(1) Miracle Mile/Excelsior Boulevard C
(2) Right-In/Right-Out West Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/B
(3) Right-In/Right-Out East Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/A
(4) Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/C
(5) Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard B
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst
approach LOS.
In addition to the level of service results identified for each of the key intersections, other field
observations related to current peak hour operations along Excelsior Boulevard are important
to note. Approximately 20 percent of the eastbound left-turn movements at the Full
Access/Excelsior Boulevard (four vehicles) and Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard (20
vehicles) intersections are currently making u-turns. The capacity analysis results identified in
Table 1 reflect this condition.
A review of the existing turning movement counts indicate that there was only one eastbound
right-turn movement into and two right-turn movements out of the right-in/right-out east access
driveway during the evening peak hour. In addition, there was very little traffic using the full-
access driveway during the evening peak hour. The opportunity to revise the existing access
driveways will be discussed later in this memorandum.
Proposed Development
The proposed drive-thru is to be constructed on the south and east sides of the existing Dairy
Queen restaurant. A detailed layout of the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3. As shown in
Figure 3, the proposed drive-thru will eliminate twelve parking spaces just south of the existing
building. Other than the proposed drive-thru, the existing Dairy Queen restaurant will not be
expanded beyond its current building.
The development has proposed to use the existing site driveways for primary access to/from the
restaurant. The primary access points along Excelsior Boulevard include Miracle Mile, the right-
in/right-out west access and the right-in/right-out east access (which is proposed to become a
right-out access only). Field observations of the existing traffic entering and exiting the site
revealed that the majority of the existing customers enter and exit using the right-in/right-out
west access.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 31
107161
June 2010
Site Plan
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 3H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 3_site plan.cdrSource: Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 32
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 7 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Based on a review of the proposed site plan, the majority of the future customers will likely
continue to enter using the right-in/right-out west access; however, with the addition of the
proposed drive-thru, most of the exiting customers will likely use the right-in/right-out east
access.
Traffic Forecasts
It is expected that the proposed drive-thru will open in year 2010. Therefore, traffic forecasts
were developed for year 2011. A one-percent annual growth rate was applied to the existing
p.m. peak hour volumes to develop background traffic forecasts.
Trip generation estimates for the p.m. peak hour were calculated for the proposed addition of the
drive-thru based on field observations and drive-thru counts of two existing Dairy Queen
restaurants (in Hopkins and Crystal, Minnesota). These two locations were selected due to their
relatively close proximity to the St. Louis Park Dairy Queen and similar size. The field
observations and drive-thru counts were then compared to annual drive-thru data from the
Hopkins store provided by Dairy Queen. Table 2 displays the results of the comparison between
the drive-thru counts taken as part of this study and the information provided by Dairy Queen.
Table 2
Comparison of Drive-Thru Counts with Annual Data Provided by Dairy Queen:
PM Peak Hour
Restaurant Location
Drive-Thru
Counts
Drive-Thru Data from DQ
Average
June
Weekday
Average
Annual
Weekday
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Drive-Thru
Vehicles
(P.M. Peak)
Hopkins Dairy Queen 22 22 18
Crystal Dairy Queen 18 N/A N/A
As shown in Table 2, the two representative local Dairy Queen restaurants generate between 18
and 22 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Based on data provided by Dairy Queen, a typical
drive-thru generates 22 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour on an average June weekday, and 18
vehicles during the p.m. peak hour on an average weekday (January through December). Since
the field observations were consistent with the data provided by Dairy Queen, and in order to
provide a conservative estimate for the amount of additional trips that will be generated by the
proposed drive-thru addition at the St. Louis Park store, the study will utilize the higher number
of drive-thru vehicles during the p.m. peak hour (22). Table 3 shows the trip generation
estimates for the proposed drive-thru addition.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 33
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 8 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Table 3
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use P.M. Peak
In Out Total
Existing Dairy Queen Restaurant a
(without Drive-Thru) 23 25 48
Additional Trips Generated by the
Proposed Drive-Thru Window b 22 22 44
Total Trips Generated by Existing Dairy
Queen with the Proposed Drive-Thru 45 47 92
Notes: a Based on existing counts.
b Based on field observations of similar-sized Dairy Queen restaurants in the Twin Cities, and drive-thru
transaction data provided by Dairy Queen.
Based on data provided by Dairy Queen, it is anticipated that the addition of the proposed drive-
thru will increase total transactions at the existing restaurant by approximately 33 percent. A
review of the ITE Trip Generation Manual revealed that a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru
typically generates approximately 30 percent more traffic than a fast-food restaurant without a
drive-thru. As shown in Table 3, the existing Dairy Queen generates 48 trips during the p.m.
peak hour. The addition of the proposed drive-thru will add 22 vehicles (or 44 trips, 22 inbound
and 22 outbound) during the p.m. peak hour. This represents almost a 90 percent increase in the
total trips generated by the existing restaurant without a drive-thru during the p.m. peak hour.
This is considered to be a conservative estimate when compared to the 33 percent increase
anticipated by Dairy Queen, and the estimated 30 percent increase in trips based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual.
A pass-by reduction can be applied to the through traffic volumes currently using Excelsior
Boulevard that will stop at the proposed site. Since these vehicles are already using the roadway,
they are not considered to be new trips. Based on information from the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, a 45-percent reduction could be used for the proposed fast-food restaurant. However,
the trip generation estimates for the proposed development represent a worst-case scenario, since
a pass-by reduction was not assumed in this study.
The directional trip distribution for the proposed site-generated traffic was based on current
travel patterns in the area for this site. Figure 4 displays the directional distribution percentages
for the proposed development. The combination of background traffic and trips generated by the
proposed development is shown in Figure 5 for the year 2011 p.m. peak hour.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 34
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
ST.DR.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.W.44th
ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
W.37th ST.
W.39th ST.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.
AVE.XENWOODBROOKSIDEBRUNSWICKCOLORADOAVE.AVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.
M EA
D
OWBROOKBLVD.DAKOTAAVE.W. 39th ST.
ST.DAKOTAAVE.W.35th
ST.AVE.COLORA DOLYNNAVE.AVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.EDGEWOODAVE.VER MONT
39th
11.BELT LINEBLVD.BLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW .
V ALLAC
H
E
R
AVE.PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.CA MBRI DGE AVE.WOOLI
B
R
A
R
Y LA
.
40th
LA.
41st
ST.AVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.
DEVANEY
ST.
W. 41st ST.
W.41 st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
O
R
W. 39 th
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.E.CLEAVE.AVE.BLVD.AVE.LA.NORTHAVE.12.VORKAVE.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.XENWOODYOSEMITE34 ST.LAKEBRUNA
V
E
.
PARK
G
L
E
N
R
D
.LINEBLVD.th
W. 34th ST.
3
100NORTHNorth
30%
107161
June 2010
Trip Distribution
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 4H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 4_distribution.cdr70%
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 35
Syr.
R.
C. P.
W.
W.
W.
ST.DR.AVE.JOPPAAVE.KIPLINGAVE.35th S
T
.
W.RALEIGHAVE.PARKCENTER BLVD.BLVD.OTTAWANA TCHEZth
LYNNAVE.AVE.P
W.ST.
ST.42 nd
OTTAWAAVE.UTICAAVE.AVE.TOLEDOSALEMAVE.MACKEY 1/2 BROOKCOOLIDGEAVE.AVE.AVE.ST.
35 1/2 ST.
W.36th ST.
37th ST.
W.
BR OOK VIEW
LA.XENWOODBROOKSIDEAVE.W.42 nd ST.
ST.
WOOD
LA.LYNNAVE.AVE.ALDENAVE.BRANSON ST.AVE.TER.THIELENAVE.VER MONT
39thBELT LINEBLVD.BROOKLA.HOBARTLA.AL ABAMAAVE.ZARTHANYOSEMITEAVE.AVE.WEBSTERAVE.VERNON43 ST.BROWNDALEAVE.DART AVE.GLENPL.MORNINGSIDE
QUENTINAVE.AVE.OAKDALEAVE.RD.WOODDALEAVE. NATCHEZW.
VALLA
C
H
E
R
AV E .PRINCETONAV E.ST.
W.PRINCETONLYNNAVE.W.
ST.KIPLINGAVE.36th
W.38 th
ST.MONTEREYOAKDALEAVE.OXF ORD ST.
GOO DRIC H
ST.AVE.MBRI DGE AVE.WOO40th
LA.
41st
ST.INGLE WOODAVE.AVE.W. 38th AVE.36 1/2 MONTEREY
OWAAV.TTAAVE.W. 40
W.
40th
ST.MINIKAHDADEVANEY
ST.
W.st
ST.WEBSTERWAY
AUTO CLUB
EXCE
L
S I
OR
W. 39t
h
PARK NICOLLETBLVD.SUNNYSIDE
W.
ST.
45th GRIMESCROCKERLI TTLE ST.WOODDAL E42 nd
PRINCETON AV.AVE.QUENT INRALEIGHAVE.SALEMAVE.DDALEAVE.3
100NORTHNorth
70
880
60
0
900
10
0
35
740
50
140
1010
135
25
20
1155
10
20
80
980
70 12020105 7005 752030 85 1535 5 010 40 1515
990
990
1180
1120
25 25 65 LEGEND
XX = P.M. Peak Hour
= Traffic Signal
= Stop Control 20 107161
June 2010
Year 2011 Build Conditions
Dairy Queen Traffic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Figure 5H:\Projects\7161\TS\Figures\Fig 5_build.cdrCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Quentin AvenueCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)
CSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Park Nicollet EntranceCSAH 3 (Excelsior Blvd)Miracle MileFull AccessRight-In/Right-Out West AccessRight-In/Right-Out East Access1
3
2
4
5
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 36
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 11 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Future Traffic Operations Analysis
To determine how well the existing roadway system will accommodate the proposed
development, a traffic operations analysis was conducted for year 2011 build conditions. The
key intersections were analyzed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software for the signalized
intersections and the Highway Capacity Software for the unsignalized intersections. For the
existing analysis, signal timing obtained from Hennepin County was used for the signalized
intersections. However, the signal timing was assumed to be optimized for year 2011 conditions.
As shown in Table 4, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable
overall LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour for year 2011 build conditions, with existing
geometrics and traffic controls.
Table 4
Year 2011 Build P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service
P.M. Peak
(1) Miracle Mile/Excelsior Boulevard C
(2) Right-In/Right-Out West Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/B
(3) Right-In/Right-Out East Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/A
(4) Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard * A/C
(5) Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard B
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control. The overall LOS is followed by the worst
approach LOS.
It is important to note that the results of this analysis take into account the increase of u-turn
movements at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard
intersections. It is assumed that all drive-thru customers will exit the site using the right-in/right-
out east access. As a worst-case scenario, it is also assumed that the customers wanting to travel
to the west will make a u-turn at the full-access or Quentin Avenue intersections along Excelsior
Boulevard. It is estimated that the eastbound u-turn movement at each of these intersections will
increase by approximately 10 vehicles during the evening peak hour, with the proposed
development. Based on the operations analysis and simulation results, it is expected that the
adjacent roadway system and key intersections can accommodate this movement.
Site Access and Circulation
As part of this study, a review of the Dairy Queen development access and circulation was
completed. Field observations at the existing Dairy Queen restaurant (without the proposed
drive-thru) were conducted during the p.m. peak hour. The main access to the development is
along Excelsior Boulevard at Miracle Mile. As stated earlier, the most westerly right-in/right-out
driveway is the main access from Excelsior Boulevard to the Dairy Queen restaurant. Although
the site is relatively busy with the current land uses, no major site circulation/parking maneuver
problems were observed during the p.m. peak hour.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 37
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 12 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
Nevertheless, as a result of the proposed drive-thru, an increase in activity along the West Access
roadway, near the existing entrance to the restaurant is expected. The West Access roadway
borders the east end of the main Miracle Mile shopping center parking lot and leads to the
proposed drive-thru roadway and additional parking located south of the existing restaurant. In
addition to providing access to the proposed Dairy Queen drive-thru and additional restaurant
parking, the West Access roadway is often used by vehicles circulating within the main Miracle
Mile parking area east of Dairy Queen. Complicating the vehicular activity along the West
Access roadway is the location of the restaurant building’s entrance (approximately midway
between Excelsior Boulevard and the proposed drive-thru).
A review of the site plan revealed that the proposed drive-thru circulation roadway will
accommodate approximately seven vehicles to stack before spilling out into the West Access
roadway. Field observations at two local representative Dairy Queen restaurants with drive-thru
windows revealed that during the p.m. peak hour, the maximum queue at the drive-thru windows
was two to three vehicles, or well below the seven vehicle stacking provided along the proposed
drive-thru circulation roadway. However, if the queue does ever extend beyond the storage
provided, the drive-thru vehicles would further complicate vehicular and pedestrian travel on the
West Access roadway. In this case, drive-thru customers will also be expected to provide a gap
for vehicles from the south parking lot to travel northbound to exit using the right-in/right-out
west access. In addition, motorists waiting in the drive-thru queue would also need to yield to
pedestrians crossing the entrance to the drive-thru circulation roadway from the south parking
lot. With the increased activity occurring in such a short distance, it would be beneficial to
relocate the proposed drive-thru roadway further to the south, away from the main parking lot
(where most of the circulation and parking operations occur). This would reduce the likelihood
of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the West Access roadway and interfering with the vehicles
and pedestrians near the restaurant entrance.
Next, the need for the right-in/right-out east access was reviewed. Existing p.m. peak hour
volumes indicate only one motorist used this driveway to enter the site, and two motorists used
this driveway to exit the site. Due to the layout of the proposed drive-thru operations, customers
are not expected to use the east access driveway to enter the site. However, this access is
expected to be the main driveway for customers leaving the proposed drive-thru. It should be
noted that the east internal roadway is also used for deliveries to the restaurants east of the
existing Dairy Queen. Delivery trucks travel northbound on the east internal roadway to
complete deliveries and leave the site using the existing right-in/right-out east access. Therefore,
consistent with the proposed site plan, it is recommended that the east driveway be modified to
right-out only access. It is further recommended that a “No Right-Turn” sign be installed on
Excelsior Boulevard at the East Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to reinforce that the
East Access is a right-turn out only access.
The Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection was also reviewed. Currently, the significant
movements at this driveway intersection are the eastbound left-turn/u-turn and southbound right-
turn. As stated in the operations analysis section, it was assumed that all drive-thru customers
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 38
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 13 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
would exit using the right-in/right-out east access. These customers traveling to the west would
need to make a u-turn on Excelsior Boulevard at either the full access just east of the right-
in/right-out east access, or at Quentin Avenue. It will be particularly difficult for motorists to
make this u-turn maneuver at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection during peak
periods due to the heavy traffic volumes and few gaps on Excelsior Boulevard. As a result, a
higher volume of u-turning vehicles will likely use the Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard
intersection during peak periods. While this is not a fatal flaw in the proposed drive-thru
addition, it will be something that needs to be monitored in order to determine whether u-turns
need to be restricted in the future at the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection east of the
right-in/right-out east access.
Alternatively, the City could consider the feasibility of modifying this access based on its current
use. At a minimum, the modification of this access to right-in/right-out/left-in operations should
be discussed. If the eastbound u-turn movement is restricted with the redesign of this
intersection to a 3/4-access, motorists are expected to make this move at the signalized
intersection of Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard. Future operations analysis results indicate
that the Quentin Avenue/Excelsior Boulevard intersection could handle this increase in traffic
due to the modification of the Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. The elimination of
left-turn movements from developments on both sides of Excelsior Boulevard will improve the
safety of this corridor segment where closely spaced intersections/driveways currently exist.
However, additional analysis is necessary to determine its feasibility. This intersection
improvement is related to the total amount of access and development along Excelsior
Boulevard, not the proposed drive-thru addition at Dairy Queen.
Pedestrian Circulation
A review of pedestrian traffic from the Miracle Mile main parking lot to the Dairy Queen
restaurant was also completed. While Dairy Queen customers currently have the option to park
south of, or west of the proposed restaurant, field observations indicate that the majority of the
current customers park in the main parking lot west of the restaurant during the p.m. peak hour.
Since the proposed site plan shows that approximately twelve existing parking spots south of the
building will be removed in order to construct the proposed drive-thru, this current trend of
customers using the parking area west of the restaurant will likely continue and may even
increase. As shown in the proposed site plan, customers parking in the Miracle Mile main lot to
the west have a marked crosswalk guiding them across the West Access roadway to the
restaurant entrance. While vehicular speeds on site are expected to be low and pedestrians
should not experience difficulty walking to the proposed restaurant, there will be an increase in
the number of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts as a result of the proposed drive-thru.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 39
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 14 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
In order to provide safer pedestrian travel to/from the Dairy Queen restaurant, the following
improvements should be considered:
• Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance: Decreasing the pedestrian crossing distance
of the West Access between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance
will improve the overall safety. This can be accomplished with either a bump-out near
the restaurant entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates
the parking area from the West Access roadway.
• Emphasize the pedestrian crossing: In lieu of, or in conjunction with decreasing the
pedestrian crossing distance, the crossing of the West Access roadway could be
emphasized using a raised crosswalk/speed table between the Miracle Mile parking area
and the restaurant entrance. Additional study is needed to see how a proposed raised
crosswalk/speed table might impact on-site drainage patterns.
• Provide pedestrian linkage to sidewalk along south side of Excelsior Boulevard:
Field observations revealed that pedestrians that access the site via the sidewalk along the
south side of Excelsior Boulevard do not have a defined path or sidewalk to the entrance
of the Dairy Queen restaurant. As a result, pedestrians share the pavement of the West
Access roadway with vehicles that enter/exit the site. A pedestrian linkage between the
sidewalk and the restaurant entrance should be created to help separate pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. This linkage could be created by either installing a raised sidewalk or a
more defined pedestrian walkway with bollards that physically separates pedestrians from
vehicles on the West Access roadway.
Figure 6 illustrates these on-site pedestrian circulation improvement options.
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 40
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 41
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 16 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A drive-thru is proposed to be added to the existing Dairy Queen located in the southeast
quadrant of Miracle Mile and Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) in the City of St. Louis Park. The
purpose of this study is to examine the impacts this development would have on the adjacent
roadway system. A site access and circulation analysis was also conducted.
Based on this analysis, the following comments and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
• Under existing conditions, all key intersections operate at an acceptable LOS C or better
during the p.m. peak hour.
• Under year 2011 build conditions, all key intersections are expected to continue to operate at
an acceptable LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour, with existing geometrics and traffic
controls. The analysis results for future conditions represent a worst-case scenario since a
pass-by reduction related to a fast-food restaurant with drive-thru operations was not
included. These results do take into account the expected increase of u-turn movements at
the Full-Access and Quentin Avenue intersections along Excelsior Boulevard.
• Field observations for existing Dairy Queen restaurant (without a drive-thru window) were
conducted during the p.m. peak hour. Although the site is relatively busy with the current
land uses, no major site circulation/parking maneuver problems were observed during the
p.m. peak hour. Nevertheless, as a result of the proposed drive-thru, an increase in activity
along the West Access roadway, near the existing entrance to the restaurant is expected.
With the increased activity occurring in such a short distance, it would be beneficial to
relocate the proposed drive-thru roadway further to the south, away from the main parking
lot (where most of the circulation and parking operations occur). This would reduce the
likelihood of drive-thru vehicles spilling out into the West Access roadway and interfering
with the vehicles and pedestrians near the restaurant entrance.
For the east internal roadway, it is recommended that the Right-In/Right-Out East Access/
Excelsior Boulevard intersection be modified to a right-out only movement (consistent with
the proposed site plan). A “No Right-Turn” sign should be installed on Excelsior Boulevard
at the East Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to reinforce that the East Access is a
right-turn out only access.
• Based on a review of on-site pedestrian circulation, the following recommendations are
offered to minimize the impacts of the increased number of on-site pedestrian/vehicular
conflicts as a result of the proposed drive-thru:
o Decrease the pedestrian crossing distance of the West Access between the Miracle Mile
parking area and the restaurant entrance with either a bump-out near the restaurant
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 42
Ms. Meg McMonigal - 17 - June 11, 2010
Mr. Adam Fulton Updated September 1, 2010
entrance and/or the enlargement of the end-island that currently separates the parking
area from the West Access.
o In lieu of, or in conjunction of the decreasing of the pedestrian crossing distance,
emphasize the pedestrian crossing of the West Access using a raised crosswalk/speed
table between the Miracle Mile parking area and the restaurant entrance. (Additional
study is needed to see how a proposed raised crosswalk/speed table might impact onsite
drainage patterns.)
o Provide an improved pedestrian linkage to sidewalk along south side of Excelsior
Boulevard by installing either a raised sidewalk or bollards to physically separate
pedestrians from vehicles on the West Access roadway.
• It is recommended that the County and City continue to monitor the Full Access/Excelsior
Boulevard intersection once the proposed drive-thru is added to determine whether u-turns
need to be restricted. Alternatively, the City could consider the feasibility of modifying the
Full Access/Excelsior Boulevard intersection to right-in/right-out/left-in operations. This
potential intersection improvement is related to the total amount of access and development
along Excelsior Boulevard, not the proposed drive-thru addition at Dairy Queen.
H:\Projects\7161\TS\Report\Revised FINAL DQ TS 9-01-10.docx
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 43
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 44
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 45
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 46
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 47
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 48
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 49
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 50
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 51
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 52
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 53
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 54
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 55
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 56
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 57
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 58
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 59
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 60
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 61
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 62
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 63
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 64
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 65
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 66
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 67
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 68
Miracle Mile Area Parking Availability Site Building square footage and Parking requirement Zoning Ordinance – Initial Off-Street Parking requirement 10% Transit ReductionTotal parking requirement Total parking available Difference Pannekoeken / Baja 4995 Excelsior Boulevard 6,168 square feet 1 space per 60 square feet 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 45 spaces Parking lot – Pannekoeken / Baja 4961 Excelsior Boulevard NA NA NA NA 58 spaces subtotal 1 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 103 spaces +10 spaces Dairy Queen 5001 Excelsior Boulevard 4,360 square feet 1 space per 60 square feet 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces subtotal 2 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces -38 spaces Miracle Mile 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Office (19,237 SF) 1 space per 250 Retail (84,941 SF) 1 space per 250 Restaurant (1,585 SF) 1 per 60 Warehouse (24,000 SF) 1 per 1,500 77 spaces 340 spaces 26 spaces 16 spaces 7 spaces 34 spaces 2 spaces 1 space 70 spaces 306 spaces 24 spaces 15 spaces 391 spaces subtotal 3 459 spaces 44 spaces 415 spaces 391 spaces -24 spaces Pannekoeken / Baja subtotal 1 103 spaces 10 spaces 93 spaces 103 spaces Dairy Queen subtotal 2 73 spaces 7 spaces 66 spaces 28 spaces Miracle Mile subtotal 3 459 spaces 44 spaces 415 spaces 391 spaces TOTAL 635 spaces 61 spaces 574 spaces 522 spaces -52 spaces City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 69
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 70
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 71
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 72
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 73
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 74
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 75
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 76
City Council Meeting of December 6, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Dairy Queen - Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle ServicePage 77