HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 20, 2010
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives
Written Reports
2. November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes December 6, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the resolution approving the establishment of
the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an
Economic Development District).
7b. Contract for Private Development between the EDA and M & L Properties, LLC
(Hardcoat Inc)
Recommended Action:
- Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Development
between the EDA and M & L Properties, LLC (Hardcoat Inc).
- Motion to approve the resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain
costs in connection with the Hardcoat TIF District.
7c. 2011 Final HRA Levy Certification
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of
a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6,
and approval of the 2011 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2011.
7d. Authorize Bank Signatories
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing bank signatories for
the EDA Checking Account.
7e. Interfund Loans
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution approving interfund loans.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
Meeting of December 20, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes November 22, 2010
3b. Joint City Council / School Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2010
3c. City Council Minutes December 6, 2010
3d. Special Study Session Minutes December 6, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and Resolution Approving Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District
Recommended Action:
- Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the establishment of the
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an
economic development district).
- Motion to ratify the EDA resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of
certain costs inconnection with the Hardcoat TIF District.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 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 Blvd.
8b. Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Registered Land
Survey for Namakan Properties, LLC at Hwy 7 and Blake Road.
Meeting of December 20, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
8c. Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt second reading of an Ordinance providing for
a Local Lodging Tax, approve summary, and authorize publication.
8d. Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Property Tax
Levies, 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan and 2011 Utility Rates
Recommended Action:
- Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting 2010 Revised General and Park & Recreation
Fund Budgets, 2011 Budgets and authorizing the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy.
- Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2011 Final HRA Levy.
- Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program.
- Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2011 Utility Rates.
8e. 2011 Employee Compensation
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution confirming a 2.25% general
increase for non-union employees effective 12/31/10 and a 0% increase for 2011;
continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing
performance program pay by 2.25% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2011.
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 20, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution of appreciation to recognize James L. Brimeyer for serving on the
Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee led by Hennepin County Regional Rail
Authority
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,724.68 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project - Wooddale Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project
No. 2009-1101 - City Contract No. 75-10
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $12,000.00 for Water Treatment
Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation with Magney Construction, Inc., Project No. 2008-1400, City
Contract No. 12-10
4d. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 02-10 which provides engineering construction
services for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project - Project No. 2004-
1700
4e. Approve Resolution establishing W. 44th Street as a Municipal State Aid Street
4f. Adopt Resolution committing specific revenue sources to special revenue funds and
approve amendments to the City’s Fund Balance Policy
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers and fund closings and Adopt
Resolution approving interfund loans.
4h. Approve a one year contract with three option years with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for
auditing services
4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing bank signatories and opening of money market account
4j. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
5912 Minnetonka Boulevard - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0191
4k. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2010
4l. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2010
4m. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2010
4n. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 2010
4o. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4p. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes November 10, 2010
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting
TITLE:
Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is intended to provide background information as a
part of the City Council’s meeting with the recommended audit firm at the special study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with a contract for auditing services with HLB Tautges
Redpath, LTD?
BACKGROUND:
The audit firm the City has used over the last six years is Abdo, Eick and Meyers. During this
time this firm has provided very good service to the City. However, given the amount of time the
City has used this firm without receiving competitive proposals, the City Council directed staff
on October 25 to request proposals for auditing services for fiscal year end 2010 with three
option years. In early November, staff sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for auditing
services. We received seven proposals, all from very reputable CPA firms. All seven of the
proposals met the minimum requirements, and were considered. Staff reviewed all of the
proposals and scored them based on criteria given in the RFP. The criteria included: experience
and quality of staff, overall firm qualifications, audit approach, audit schedule, additional
services, and cost.
After all of the proposals were reviewed, the top three firms were invited to give a brief
presentation and answer questions posed by staff. City staff interviewed all three firms on
Thursday, December 2nd. The interviews were scored based on criteria including:
communication, experience with cities of similar size and complexity, work relationships, and
overall quality of the presentation. Several reference calls were made to other cities with
experience in working with the various firms. After consideration of the proposals, interviews,
and reference calls, staff came to the conclusion that HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD would provide
the best overall service for the City. Below are the CPA firms that were interviewed, along with
their corresponding fees for the 2010 year-end audit and total fees for 2010-2013 audits.
Firm Fees for 2010 Audit Cumulative 2010-2013 Audits
MMKR $43,200 $175,450
HLB Tautges Redpath $45,000 $195,300
Abdo, Eick & Meyers $46,906 $190,318
All three of these proposals are a decrease from the 2009 audit fees of $51,000 and provide the
same services as the 2009 audit.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives
Background on HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD
HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD is a CPA firm located in White Bear Lake, MN. They are a
member of HLB International, a worldwide organization of professional accounting firms. This
gives them access to the resources of accounting firms throughout the world. Several members
of their staff have 20-30+ years of governmental experience. Many of their staff are members of
the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association, and they routinely host seminars and
workshops for clients regarding important changes in accounting standards. They have a
reputation for providing a quality audit, and pride themselves on being “thinkers, not robots”.
Approval of the contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD is included in the consent agenda for
the December 20, 2010 City Council Meeting. The contract is for one year, with three option
years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
The expense for the 2011 audit is included in the budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD Information
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.426.7000 www.hlbtr.com
Tautges Redpath, Ltd.
Certified Public Accountants
government
We train our staff to be Thinkers, not Robots. Thinkers understand city finance
and then apply their understanding in determining the right procedures
and services for clients. There are many good accountants that follow
governmental accounting standards, but in today’s world that is not good
enough. Governmental services should not be treated like a commodity.
Our government team works with a wide range of entities in a number of
service areas. Our specialized training and staff experience enables us to
handle a variety of complex issues.
By keeping an eye on the overall picture, our staff is better equipped to identify
audit and accounting issues and design appropriate audit procedures, which
ultimately protects your organization throughout the entire auditing process.
Specialized Services
• Arbitrage
• Fund Balance
• Debt Services Study
• Utility Rate Studies
• Tax Increment Financing
• Cost Allocation Studies
• Budgeting
• MS 429 bonds and the special
assessment process
Entities We Serve
• Cities/Towns
• Tribal Government
• Fire Relief Associations
• Watershed Districts
• Cable Commissions
• Housing and Redevelopment
Authorities
• School Districts
Industry Involvement
• Minnesota Government Finance
Officers Association (MnGFOA)
• GFOA Certificate Review Program
• League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)
• Minnesota Association of School
Business Officials (MASBO)
• AICPA Governmental Audit
Quality Center
Special Study Session Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives
Page 3
4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.426.7000 www.hlbtr.com
Tautges Redpath, Ltd.
Certified Public Accountants
...government/nfp service profile
HLB Tautges Redpath has a 40-year history of providing audit and advisory services to governmental
and not-for-profit entities. With our long-term client relationships, continuing education programs
and experience with a variety of entities, our certified public accountants are sensitive to the needs
of not-for-profit and government organizations and stay up-to-date on all issues, laws and changes
affecting them.
Target Clients
Governmental Entities
Cities/Towns, Tribal Government, Fire Relief Associations, Watershed Districts, Cable
Commissions, Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, School Districts
Not-For-Profit Entities
501(c)(3) Charitable Organizations, Private Foundations, Charter Schools, Member Organizations,
Business Leagues, Civic Organizations, Social Clubs
Why HLB Tautges Redpath?
Service Approach. We provide a service, not a commodity. We dig into the details and ask the
questions that should be asked. Our approach is a good fit for organizations that expect high
quality services. Our clients value our responsiveness to their needs and the assurance pro-
vided by our services.
Dedicated Staff. We have a business unit of more than 20 staff exclusively dedicated to gov-
ernmental and not-for-profit services. As such, a great deal of time and effort is expended in
the ongoing training of professional staff to proactively serve our clients. This time and effort
presents clients with competent, well-prepared audit staff sensitive to the continuing needs of
governmental and not-for-profit entities.
100% employee-owned company. Our employees have a financial interest in the company
and therefore have a vested interest in helping the firm grow and delivering quality services to
clients.
More attention. Better results. That’s the HLB Tautges Redpath difference. Clients hire us for
our expertise and then remain loyal because we invest the time and resources necessary to un-
derstand their unique needs and interests. Clients know we care.
Not-For-Profit Services
• Audited, Reviewed or Compiled Financial
Statements
• Tax Planning and Preparation
• Charitable Gambling
• Federal Single Audits
• Financial Statement Preparation
• Special Services
• Internal Control Studies
• Cost Allocations
Government Services
• Financial Audit
• Cost Allocation Studies
• Tax Increment Financing Assistance
• Accounting Assistance
• Debt/Utility Rate Studies
• Annual Financial Report Preparation
• Arbitrage
• Federal Single Audits
Special Study Session Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Meet with Proposed City Audit Firm Representatives
Page 4
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
November 2010 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds
should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the
discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Through November, both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are
running below budget. Actual expenditures should generally run about 92% of the annual
budget in November. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 86.1% of the
adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 86.6%. Both are very
consistent with prior year results through November. Certain revenues can tend to be harder to
gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which would be
property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc).
However, the overall revenues in both funds are also very consistent when comparing prior year
through November.
It is important to note that there is more than a full week of November payroll expense which has
not been recorded at the time this report was prepared. Due to the conversion to the two-week
payroll delay, time earned for the period of November 20th to November 30th will not be paid
and recorded until the December 17th pay date. Both funds would still be under budget through
November for expenditures, but this does account for a portion of the variance.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied
with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues are at 98.5% of budget through the month of November.
This is due in part to the license revenues, which in November have already exceeded the
total annual budget by 14% or $92,000. Many new restaurants and businesses opened in
2010 that weren’t all anticipated when the revenue budget was prepared last year. This
has caused both Food & Beverage and Liquor license revenues to increase and exceed
budget. Rental license revenues are also up because more homeowners are renting out
their homes as it has become more difficult to sell in the current real estate market. When
looking at strictly permit revenue through November, it is at 92.25% of budget. While it
Special Study Session Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
is still anticipated that permit revenues will come close to the budgeted amount, it is not
likely that they will exceed budget as was the case in 2008 and 2009.
• The Human Resources budget shows training revenue will exceed the annual budget for
the year under Charges for Services. This will be consistent with the trend in prior years.
• Other recoveries revenue under the Police Department will exceed budget in 2010 by
approximately $18,000. This is due to a process improvement that has been implemented
in 2010 to better handle and account for Property Room cases.
Expenditures:
• Public Works Operations Supplies have exceeded budget through November by 12% or
$59,000. The most significant expenses in this category to date include $211,000 for
asphalt work, $141,000 for road salt, and $107,000 for street lights. There were some
asphalt expenses in 2010 that were not anticipated during the budget planning process,
including $33,000 for overlaying Utica Avenue. Salt and asphalt costs have also
continued to rise approximately 8% to 10% annually, which means that unanticipated
expenditures can have an even larger impact on the budget. It is expected that very few
additional supplies expenditures will be incurred for the remainder of the year. It still
appears that the Public Works Operations Division as a whole will end the year at or just
under budget.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• Park Maintenance Personal Services is at 95% through the month of November.
Temporary salaries exceeded budget due to a longer than normal mowing season in 2010.
The early spring coupled with ample rainfall throughout the entire summer increased the
amount of mowing and trimming staff time required. This division has also experienced
some staffing challenges increasing the need for temporary help.
Other Notes
• While the November results do not reflect this at the time this report was prepared,
overtime could exceed budget in a few General Fund and Park & Rec departments due to
the excessive snow fall already this year. Staff will report on this in more detail in the
December report. Most of the departments that incur overtime costs for snow removal do
still appear to be in a position to come in at or slightly under budget overall.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-7,556,184.48- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 135,977.71- 2,259,313.39- 35,454.61- 98.45 |2,515,000.00-2,636,338.09- 104.82
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 23,569.24- 265,044.45- 46,705.55- 85.02 |312,000.00-289,471.95- 92.78
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 41,736.16- 1,510,734.88- 88,052.12- 94.49 |1,647,214.00-1,484,338.39- 90.11
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00-8,017.76- 684,218.32- 453,799.68- 60.12 |1,201,900.00-639,084.68- 53.17
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00-8,862.78- 120,607.20- 20,607.20 120.61 |100,000.00-138,100.22- 138.10
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-218,163.65-12,396,102.72-7,936,825.28-60.97 |20,429,389.00-12,396,326.64-60.68
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,079,348.85 15,839,260.66 2,292,743.34 87.36 |18,496,154.00 16,573,707.10 89.61
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 17,709.36 749,996.09 96,538.91 88.60 |766,135.00 564,654.41 73.70
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 346.68 66,634.96 1,140.04 98.32 |70,775.00 42,101.95 59.49
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 174,725.56 2,898,856.65 1,024,001.35 73.90 |4,160,215.00 3,089,811.10 74.27
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 209,296.84 209,296.84-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,272,130.45 19,764,045.20 3,205,126.80 86.05 |23,493,279.00 20,270,274.56 86.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 2,368,506.14- 215,318.86- 91.67 |2,678,910.00-2,409,834.02- 89.96
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-284.88- 18,835.43- 17,335.43 1,255.70 |2,000.00-4,393.75- 219.69
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.22 261,747.22- 30.87- |350,000.00-177,160.73- 50.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,202.00-2,202.00 |5,953.00
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00- 5,953.00-5,953.00 |6,125.00-
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-36.14-63.86- 36.14 |340.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-215,653.62-2,333,785.49-451,639.51-83.79 |3,030,910.00-2,591,901.00-85.52
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 181,181.00 .53 .94- 181,181.94 |181,000.00 78.04 .04
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,806.38 17,465.57 1,534.43 91.92 |19,000.00 21,819.42 114.84
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,806.91 17,464.63 182,716.37 8.72 |200,000.00 21,898.17 10.95
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 840,120.09 5,051,621.62 5,000,621.62-9,905.14 |232,980.00 5,303,945.09 2,276.57
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 840,120.09 5,051,621.62 5,000,621.62-9,905.14 |232,980.00 5,303,945.09 2,276.57
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 3
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:07R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 50.00 |4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 50.00
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |6,735.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 56.25-56.25 |
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-985.72- 48,287.19- 22,931.81- 67.80 |55,702.00-65,145.52- 116.95
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 33,035.83- 982,627.25- 91,272.75- 91.50 |1,141,598.00-1,004,436.34- 87.99
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 52,364.52- 709,831.75- 197,068.25- 78.27 |883,000.00-681,331.05- 77.16
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-86,386.07-3,748,860.44-2,324,305.56-61.73 |6,153,418.00-3,794,206.91-61.66
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 182,594.92 3,089,785.07 350,630.93 89.81 |3,503,813.00 3,152,543.00 89.97
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 58,263.10 685,684.68 221,196.32 75.61 |872,131.00 634,422.53 72.74
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,681.57 561.57- 113.63 |4,120.00 4,797.21 116.44
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 64,924.34 1,476,856.68 235,892.32 86.23 |1,703,002.00 1,540,010.32 90.43
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 305,782.36 5,257,008.00 814,158.00 86.59 |6,098,418.00 5,331,773.06 87.43
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-2,550.00- 9,732.69-3,267.31- 74.87 |12,000.00-6,523.00- 54.36
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 8,160.00-8,160.00 |2,890.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-2,550.00-19,392.69-6,392.69 149.17 |12,000.00-10,173.08-84.78
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|12.97
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,270.73 19,117.02 4,117.02- 127.45 |16,450.98
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,270.73 19,156.02 4,156.02-127.71 |16,463.95
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 218,117.02 1,507,910.89 1,507,910.89-|67,000.00-1,543,857.02 2,304.26-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 218,117.02 1,507,910.89 1,507,910.89-|67,000.00-1,543,857.02 2,304.26-
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 4
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-7,556,184.48- 7,333,420.52- 50.75 |14,653,275.00-7,208,993.31- 49.20
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-22,602.50- 22,602.50- 50.00 |45,205.00-22,602.50- 50.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261.28-261.28 |372.72-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 82,947.17-2,052.83- 97.58 |85,000.00-78,148.42- 91.94
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,083.33-7,661,995.43-7,357,814.57-51.01 |14,783,480.00-7,310,116.95-49.45
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 39,697.59 39,697.59-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 39,697.59 39,697.59-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 2,368,506.14- 215,318.86- 91.67 |2,678,910.00-2,409,834.02- 89.96
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-177,158.12- 50.62
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |500.00
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-2,306,758.71-477,066.29-82.86 |3,028,910.00-2,586,492.14-85.39
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |2,049.55
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 2,049.55 1.14
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-222,402.07-9,929,056.55-7,693,897.45-56.34 |17,632,390.00-9,894,559.54-56.12
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-222,402.07-9,929,056.55-7,693,897.45-56.34 |17,632,390.00-9,894,559.54-56.12
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 5
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 183,360.00-916.67 205,865.76- 22,505.76 112.27 |215,500.00-169,476.96- 78.64
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-10,000.00-2,000.00 125.00 |8,000.00-6,750.00- 84.38
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 34.50-835.57-835.57 |97.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |143.40-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-882.17 216,701.33-25,341.33 113.24 |223,500.00-177,414.66-79.38
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 45,838.81 445,364.28 964.28- 100.22 |531,500.00 471,410.02 88.69
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 166.35 2,711.79 388.21 87.48 |3,700.00 2,607.87 70.48
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 15,855.01 313,576.15 163,395.85 65.74 |455,635.00 369,642.99 81.13
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 61,860.17 761,652.22 162,819.78 82.39 |990,835.00 843,660.88 85.15
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |340.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME |340.50-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |4.86
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |5.57
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 62,742.34 544,950.89 188,161.11 74.33 |767,335.00 665,911.29 86.78
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 62,742.34 544,950.89 188,161.11 74.33 |767,335.00 665,911.29 86.78
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 6
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-44,682.38-3,635.62- 92.48 |50,000.00-39,913.25- 79.83
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00 |1,229.36-
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-44,832.38-3,485.62-92.79 |50,000.00-41,142.61-82.29
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 65,097.37 845,157.17 75,642.83 91.79 |937,200.00 886,714.59 94.61
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 171.48 3,523.37 701.63 83.39 |4,225.00 3,293.28 77.95
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 11,349.47 137,959.06 14,945.94 90.23 |162,555.00 127,682.64 78.55
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 76,618.32 986,639.60 91,290.40 91.53 |1,103,980.00 1,017,690.51 92.18
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 50.00- 5,775.00-5,775.00 |6,125.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE .60-.60 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-5,775.60-5,775.60 |6,125.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 .53 5.94-505.94 1.19- |500.00 20.12 4.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 .01-500.01 |500.00 22.97 4.59
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 .53 5.95-1,005.95 .60-|1,000.00 43.09 4.31
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 76,568.85 936,025.67 94,586.33 90.82 |1,054,980.00 970,465.99 91.99
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 76,568.85 936,025.67 94,586.33 90.82 |1,054,980.00 970,465.99 91.99
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 7
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-7.00 10,475.00-1,475.00 116.39 |9,000.00-10,704.00- 118.93
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 6.00-270.00-270.00 |30.00-
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-1.00 10,745.00-1,745.00 119.39 |9,000.00-10,734.00-119.27
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 28,054.10 431,373.04 51,026.96 89.42 |481,000.00 438,594.12 91.18
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 44.62 1,256.29 743.71 62.81 |2,000.00 1,601.32 80.07
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 8,648.23 97,079.04 63,470.96 60.47 |160,550.00 95,818.98 59.68
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 36,746.95 529,708.37 115,241.63 82.13 |643,550.00 536,014.42 83.29
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 36,747.95 518,963.37 116,986.63 81.60 |634,550.00 525,280.42 82.78
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 36,747.95 518,963.37 116,986.63 81.60 |634,550.00 525,280.42 82.78
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 8
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-2,350.00- 13,315.00-4,315.00 147.94 |12,000.00-13,074.25- 108.95
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00-1,188.76- 521,807.64- 72,192.36- 87.85 |585,000.00-472,555.16- 80.78
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-3,538.76-535,122.64-67,877.36-88.74 |597,000.00-485,629.41-81.34
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 79,666.14 945,098.14 56,601.86 94.35 |1,023,000.00 913,089.82 89.26
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 384.36 1,315.64 22.61 |3,000.00 682.06 22.74
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 795.85 39,443.97 8,306.03 82.61 |56,750.00 47,443.67 83.60
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 80,461.99 984,926.47 66,223.53 93.70 |1,083,750.00 961,215.55 88.69
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 76,923.23 449,803.83 1,653.83-100.37 |486,750.00 475,586.14 97.71
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 76,923.23 449,803.83 1,653.83-100.37 |486,750.00 475,586.14 97.71
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 9
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-17,250.00- 25,750.00- 40.12 |8,200.00-11,500.00- 140.24
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 15,193.67-193.67 101.29 |15,000.00-15,000.00- 100.00
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-32,443.67-25,556.33-55.94 |23,200.00-26,500.00-114.22
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 26,303.40 422,344.50 123,855.50 77.32 |534,000.00 484,673.65 90.76
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 6,467.92 65,252.70 20,897.30 75.74 |90,500.00 41,992.69 46.40
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 19,599.77 6,400.23 75.38 |26,000.00 13,885.05 53.40
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 12,435.32 273,580.26 149,811.74 64.62 |502,942.00 354,005.29 70.39
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 45,206.64 780,777.23 300,964.77 72.18 |1,153,442.00 894,556.68 77.56
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 56.95 56.95-|203.10
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 56.95 56.95-|240.12
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 43,956.64 748,390.51 275,351.49 73.10 |1,130,242.00 868,296.80 76.82
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 43,956.64 748,390.51 275,351.49 73.10 |1,130,242.00 868,296.80 76.82
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 10
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |1,277.42-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00-50.00 |
4001 REVENUES 50.00-50.00 |1,277.42-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 30,626.25 472,960.11 43,889.89 91.51 |562,500.00 526,433.53 93.59
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 1,931.99 22,728.31 771.69 96.72 |30,800.00 19,444.93 63.13
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,556.10 23,556.10-|3,284.23
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 46,580.07 699,807.12 160,508.88 81.34 |877,970.00 641,053.08 73.02
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 79,138.31 1,219,051.64 181,614.36 87.03 |1,471,270.00 1,190,215.77 80.90
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 35.54-35.54 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 35.54-35.54 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21.31 21.31-|113.97
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21.31 21.31-|113.97
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 79,138.31 1,218,987.41 181,678.59 87.03 |1,471,270.00 1,189,052.32 80.82
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 79,138.31 1,218,987.41 181,678.59 87.03 |1,471,270.00 1,189,052.32 80.82
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 11
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-850.00-2,150.00- 28.33 |3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-850.00-2,150.00-28.33 |3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 10,884.07 142,362.77 45,917.23 75.61 |184,980.00 137,166.05 74.15
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 5,605.00 77,953.65 15,571.35 83.35 |104,245.00 123,119.19 118.11
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 16,489.07 220,316.42 61,588.58 78.15 |289,225.00 260,285.24 89.99
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |16.49
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |16.49
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 16,489.07 219,466.42 59,438.58 78.69 |286,225.00 260,301.73 90.94
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 16,489.07 219,466.42 59,438.58 78.69 |286,225.00 260,301.73 90.94
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 12
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 150.00- 2,550.00-2,550.00 |
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 23,569.24- 254,905.02- 48,594.98- 83.99 |303,500.00-282,721.95- 93.15
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 40,241.72- 793,913.74-6,668.26- 99.17 |809,009.00-811,205.46- 100.27
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-6,431.50- 73,042.19- 36,657.81- 66.58 |109,700.00-84,459.02- 76.99
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 252.45- 20,247.56- 20,247.56 |43,523.85-
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-70,644.91-1,144,658.51-69,123.49-94.31 |1,222,209.00-1,221,910.28-99.98
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 376,313.02 5,741,219.11 868,074.89 86.87 |6,546,794.00 5,888,632.16 89.95
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 3,768.20 73,280.17 67,769.83 51.95 |150,900.00 82,923.58 54.95
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 346.68 20,879.09 12,895.91 61.82 |35,775.00 21,328.03 59.62
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 17,932.96 353,031.55 168,751.45 67.66 |547,053.00 361,222.08 66.03
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 209,296.84 209,296.84-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 398,360.86 6,397,706.76 908,195.24 87.57 |7,280,522.00 6,354,105.85 87.28
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00-284.88- 18,835.43- 17,335.43 1,255.70 |2,000.00-4,393.75- 219.69
8100 INTEREST .21-.21 |2.61-
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-284.88-18,835.64-17,335.64 1,255.71 |2,000.00-4,396.36-219.82
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 17.70 211.08 288.92 42.22 |500.00 203.79 40.76
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 17.70 211.08 288.92 42.22 |1,000.00 203.79 20.38
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 327,448.77 5,234,423.69 856,696.31 85.94 |6,057,313.00 5,128,003.00 84.66
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 327,448.77 5,234,423.69 856,696.31 85.94 |6,057,313.00 5,128,003.00 84.66
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 13
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 4,462.86 68,345.51 8,354.49 89.11 |76,500.00 69,730.57 91.15
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 4,564.98 4,140.02 52.44 |8,705.00 4,512.96 51.84
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 4,462.86 72,910.49 13,344.51 84.53 |86,055.00 74,243.53 86.27
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 4,462.86 72,910.49 13,344.51 84.53 |86,055.00 74,243.53 86.27
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 4,462.86 72,910.49 13,344.51 84.53 |86,055.00 74,243.53 86.27
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 14
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-3,526.82- 32,619.59-7,380.41- 81.55 |50,000.00-41,548.82- 83.10
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-1,494.44- 214,058.64- 85,941.36- 71.35 |300,000.00-194,560.63- 64.85
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-325.00- 13,832.35-9,832.35 345.81 |4,000.00-15,679.00- 391.98
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,382.00-1,382.00 |
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-5,346.26-261,892.58-82,107.42-76.13 |354,000.00-251,788.45-71.13
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 152,191.71 2,377,344.65 448,835.35 84.12 |2,815,680.00 2,469,386.29 87.70
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 1,344.29 29,386.78 42,423.22 40.92 |71,810.00 37,139.26 51.72
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 2,600.00 2,400.00 52.00 |5,000.00 2,909.64 58.19
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 12,045.43 128,360.08 90,822.92 58.56 |224,183.00 153,070.53 68.28
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 165,581.43 2,537,691.51 584,481.49 81.28 |3,116,673.00 2,662,505.72 85.43
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,202.00-2,202.00 |5,453.00
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,380.00-2,380.00 |5,453.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |11.52
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |11.52
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 160,235.17 2,273,418.93 504,754.07 81.83 |2,762,673.00 2,416,181.79 87.46
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 160,235.17 2,273,418.93 504,754.07 81.83 |2,762,673.00 2,416,181.79 87.46
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 15
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,987,288.00- 126,282.56- 1,951,651.04- 35,636.96- 98.21 |2,162,500.00-2,348,183.06- 108.59
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 45.00-381.91-381.91 |2,277.11-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 95.80-95.80 |25.19-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-126,327.56-1,952,128.75-35,159.25-98.23 |2,162,500.00-2,350,485.36-108.69
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 92,435.66 1,446,846.98 266,253.02 84.46 |1,915,500.00 1,676,176.13 87.51
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 1,109.32 5,393.05 16,106.95 25.08 |22,300.00 11,519.82 51.66
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 7,532.79 57,648.64 5,978.36 90.60 |71,627.00 54,182.86 75.65
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 101,077.77 1,509,888.67 288,338.33 83.97 |2,009,427.00 1,741,878.81 86.69
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 5.00 5.00-|20.90
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,776.84 17,164.40 835.60 95.36 |18,000.00 19,171.43 106.51
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,776.84 17,169.40 830.60 95.39 |18,000.00 19,192.33 106.62
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-23,472.95-425,070.68-253,909.68 248.35 |135,073.00-589,414.22-436.37
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-23,472.95-425,070.68-253,909.68 248.35 |135,073.00-589,414.22-436.37
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 16
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 825,800.00 48,065.18 754,017.48 71,782.52 91.31 |826,500.00 815,492.18 98.67
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 197.57 2,956.93 1,043.07 73.92 |4,500.00 3,896.15 86.58
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 269.50 21,962.67 2,137.33 91.13 |22,950.00 17,416.09 75.89
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 48,532.25 778,937.08 75,962.92 91.11 |854,950.00 836,804.42 97.88
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 11.84 11.84 11.84-|21.74
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 11.84 11.84 11.84-|21.74
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 48,544.09 778,948.92 75,951.08 91.12 |854,950.00 836,826.16 97.88
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 48,544.09 778,948.92 75,951.08 91.12 |854,950.00 836,826.16 97.88
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 17
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-4,210.00- 52,452.00- 22,548.00- 69.94 |75,000.00-63,210.00- 84.28
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-1,650.00- 328,350.00-.50 |436,000.00-250.00- .06
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-4,210.00-54,102.00-350,898.00-13.36 |511,000.00-63,460.00-12.42
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 44,355.99 659,572.78 90,427.22 87.94 |844,000.00 679,810.87 80.55
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 372.17 4,951.27 2,098.73 70.23 |7,050.00 3,132.15 44.43
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 695.00 34.75
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 3,215.70 35,587.61 35,162.39 50.30 |70,750.00 50,966.99 72.04
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 47,943.86 700,111.66 129,688.34 84.37 |923,800.00 734,605.01 79.52
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 43,733.86 646,009.66 221,209.66-152.07 |412,800.00 671,145.01 162.58
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 43,733.86 646,009.66 221,209.66-152.07 |412,800.00 671,145.01 162.58
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 18
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-375.00-860.00-740.00 716.67 |845.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-139.43-110.57- 55.77 |500.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-479,310.00- 29,310.00 106.51 |490,000.00-455,022.50- 92.86
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 271.00-271.00-271.00 |
4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-646.00-480,580.43-30,210.43 106.71 |490,500.00-455,867.50-92.94
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 75,054.29 1,087,254.14 143,045.86 88.37 |1,217,000.00 1,116,397.12 91.73
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 2,135.45 538,283.47 58,783.47- 112.26 |374,500.00 356,421.30 95.17
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 32,460.23 618,649.28 180,650.72 77.40 |894,300.00 689,673.75 77.12
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 109,649.97 2,244,186.89 264,913.11 89.44 |2,485,800.00 2,162,492.17 86.99
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 109,003.97 1,763,606.46 295,123.54 85.66 |1,995,300.00 1,706,624.67 85.53
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 109,003.97 1,763,606.46 295,123.54 85.66 |1,995,300.00 1,706,624.67 85.53
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 840,120.09 5,051,779.02 5,000,779.02-9,905.45 |232,980.00 5,303,945.09 2,276.57
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 19
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-2,007,436.00- 2,007,436.00- 50.00 |4,073,118.00-2,036,559.00- 50.00
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-22,351.00- 22,351.00- 50.00 |44,702.00-44,702.00- 100.00
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00-8,822.56- 241,406.69- 19,593.31- 92.49 |259,298.00-236,425.57- 91.18
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-650.00- 23,859.00-7,541.00- 75.98 |34,000.00-22,844.70- 67.19
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-9,472.56-2,295,052.69-2,056,921.31-52.74 |4,411,118.00-2,340,531.27-53.06
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 38,047.00 616,335.50 98,944.50 86.17 |729,162.00 637,011.64 87.36
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 4,903.74 38,376.43 21,074.57 64.55 |59,451.00 32,042.57 53.90
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 8,715.61 396,007.79 59,669.21 86.91 |502,597.00 418,242.06 83.22
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 51,666.35 1,050,719.72 179,688.28 85.40 |1,291,210.00 1,087,296.27 84.21
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-2,500.00- 8,126.13-6,873.87- 54.17 |14,000.00-3,250.00- 23.21
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 8,160.00-8,160.00 |2,890.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-2,500.00-16,286.13-1,286.13 108.57 |14,000.00-6,900.08-49.29
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,232.61 18,478.79 3,478.79- 123.19 |15,879.22
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,232.61 18,517.79 3,517.79-123.45 |15,883.01
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-40,926.40 1,242,101.31-1,879,464.69-39.79 |3,133,908.00-1,244,252.07-39.70
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-40,926.40 1,242,101.31-1,879,464.69-39.79 |3,133,908.00-1,244,252.07-39.70
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 20
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 630,000.00- 12,726.00- 556,320.70- 73,679.30- 88.30 |679,000.00-504,456.68- 74.29
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 42,647.10- 562,223.41- 182,276.59- 75.52 |722,000.00-518,502.52- 71.81
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-55,373.10-1,118,544.11-255,955.89-81.38 |1,401,000.00-1,022,959.20-73.02
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 29,885.31 675,349.43 110,288.57 85.96 |792,467.00 709,058.08 89.47
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 2,833.37 156,920.72 13,429.28 92.12 |170,350.00 160,787.72 94.39
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 20,342.61 416,359.29 64,510.71 86.58 |491,950.00 374,580.58 76.14
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 53,061.29 1,248,629.44 188,228.56 86.90 |1,454,767.00 1,244,426.38 85.54
8001 OTHER INCOME
8065 SALE OF SALVAGE 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-1,500.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |9.18
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |9.18
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 2,311.81-128,585.33 66,227.33-206.21 |53,767.00 221,476.36 411.92
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 2,311.81-128,585.33 66,227.33-206.21 |53,767.00 221,476.36 411.92
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 21
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-622.00-5,653.00-9.91 |6,735.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-15.00- 10,485.00-.14 |10,700.00-130.00 1.21-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-679.00- 26,876.35-3,123.65- 89.59 |26,000.00-39,835.73- 153.21
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-679.00-27,513.35-19,261.65-58.82 |36,700.00-46,440.73-126.54
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 51,588.77 883,871.45 42,628.55 95.40 |969,400.00 877,136.00 90.48
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 2,980.89 82,391.14 15,363.86 84.28 |93,555.00 86,173.37 92.11
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,353.75 233.75- 105.67 |4,120.00 4,276.24 103.79
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 16,017.24 292,742.63 68,597.37 81.02 |369,510.00 306,649.47 82.99
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 70,586.90 1,263,358.97 133,356.03 90.45 |1,443,585.00 1,274,235.08 88.27
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 69,907.90 1,235,845.62 114,094.38 91.55 |1,406,885.00 1,227,794.35 87.27
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 69,907.90 1,235,845.62 114,094.38 91.55 |1,406,885.00 1,227,794.35 87.27
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 22
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,400.00-4,162.75- 95,707.54-9,307.54 110.77 |82,600.00-92,023.94- 111.41
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 2,347.25-2,347.25 |242.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-4,162.75-98,054.79-11,654.79 113.49 |82,600.00-92,265.94-111.70
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 24,438.91 380,288.67 40,911.33 90.29 |420,586.00 388,833.68 92.45
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 2,642.85 14,121.64 12,878.36 52.30 |26,700.00 15,441.89 57.83
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 327.82 327.82-|500.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 1,740.41 31,907.88 13,342.12 70.51 |44,500.00 32,615.93 73.29
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 28,822.17 426,646.01 66,803.99 86.46 |491,786.00 437,391.50 88.94
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 50.00- 2,760.00-2,760.00 |1,473.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 50.00-2,760.00-2,760.00 |1,473.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 38.12 638.23 638.23-|571.76
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 38.12 638.23 638.23-|571.76
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 24,647.54 326,469.45 80,580.55 80.20 |409,186.00 344,224.32 84.12
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 24,647.54 326,469.45 80,580.55 80.20 |409,186.00 344,224.32 84.12
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 23
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 56.25-56.25 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00-7,324.52- 89,177.32-3,177.32 103.69 |110,000.00-162,539.38- 147.76
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |3,860.98-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-7,324.52-89,233.57-3,233.57 103.76 |110,000.00-166,400.36-151.27
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 8,114.65 102,887.55 5,760.45 94.70 |108,898.00 100,079.76 91.90
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 25.00 13,615.24 5,809.76 70.09 |19,425.00 15,441.22 79.49
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 8,077.05 200,932.07 22,537.93 89.91 |158,470.00 288,588.89 182.11
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 16,216.70 317,434.86 34,108.14 90.30 |286,793.00 404,109.87 140.91
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 1,153.44 846.56 57.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00- 90.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 1,153.44 846.56 57.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00-90.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 8,892.18 229,354.73 38,188.27 85.73 |178,793.00 235,909.51 131.95
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 8,892.18 229,354.73 38,188.27 85.73 |178,793.00 235,909.51 131.95
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 24
12/14/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:29:38R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
201011/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26,517.00-985.72- 25,936.19-580.81- 97.81 |11,000.00-20,443.52- 185.85
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,388.42- 94,525.74-6,474.26- 93.59 |101,000.00-96,045.12- 95.09
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-9,374.14-120,461.93-7,055.07-94.47 |112,000.00-125,609.41-112.15
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 30,520.28 431,052.47 52,097.53 89.22 |483,300.00 440,423.84 91.13
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 44,877.25 380,259.51 152,640.49 71.36 |502,650.00 324,535.76 64.56
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 10,031.42 138,907.02 7,234.98 95.05 |135,975.00 119,333.39 87.76
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 85,428.95 950,219.00 211,973.00 81.76 |1,130,277.00 884,313.96 78.24
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 76,054.81 829,757.07 204,917.93 80.19 |1,018,277.00 758,704.55 74.51
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 76,054.81 829,757.07 204,917.93 80.19 |1,018,277.00 758,704.55 74.51
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 218,117.02 1,507,910.89 1,507,910.89-|67,000.00-1,543,857.02 2,304.26-
Special Study Sessionl Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: November 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Page 25
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 6, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), 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 November 15, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports – None
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding
Supply property) EDA Resolution No. 10-21
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the VIC application has been filed
with the MPCA in order to obtain a No Association and Off-Site Source determination
from the contamination on the property. He noted that staff is currently arranging to meet
with MPCA officials to discuss the EDA’s plans for the property. He stated that in
addition, the EDA’s legal counsel prepared an opinion letter explaining the protections
afforded the EDA pursuant to this purchase. He said the primary reason for acquiring the
property is for blight removal and noted the property could be used for storm water
improvements to serve the neighborhood or sold to a redeveloper. He stated the current
value of the property is $495,000 and the EDA is purchasing the property for $260,000;
short term costs are estimated at $65,000 and these costs include building demolition. He
advised that the purchase of the property will be paid for through the City’s Development
Fund and grants will be sought to address any future clean-up costs. He added that the
closing date will be on or before December 31, 2010.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2010
Commissioner Sanger stated that she understood why this property needs to be
redeveloped and cleaned up, but expressed concern about the City putting itself in a
position where it will need to apply for a State DEED grant to clean up the site, because
funds may not be available given the State’s current budget deficit. She asked if the
opinion letter from counsel was clear that the City would not have any liability for
remediation costs necessary on the site, adding that she was concerned that the opinion
letter does not address any liability the City might have if indeed pollution emanating
from the site leaches out and pollutes properties adjacent to this site.
Mr. Locke stated that the opinion letter states that the City did not put the contamination
on this site and therefore is not responsible for it. He indicated that the City would be
responsible if it did something on this site that makes worse the contamination already
there or if the City introduces contamination on the site. He explained that just because
the City is not legally responsible for any contamination, if the City owns the property
and a situation arises as to who is responsible for any contamination, and the responsible
party cannot be found or simply does not have any money to pay for clean-up, the
property owner steps up to pay for clean-up or the property owner finds a way to pay for
clean-up through grant dollars. He indicated that in this case, the analysis that was done
suggests that the relative risk on the site is low and the City’s removal of the building is a
step toward resolving the problems on the site.
Commissioner Sanger asked if, based on this opinion letter, it is unlikely that the City
would have any liability to neighboring properties in the event that a neighboring
property was polluted based on substances founds on this site.
Mr. Locke replied that this is correct.
President Finkelstein stated that the opinion letter from counsel provides that a landowner
is not responsible for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance unless the
landowner was, among other things, “engaged in the business of generating, transporting,
storing, treating, or disposing of a hazardous substance at the property, or knowingly
permitted others to engage in such a business at the property” or “knowingly permitted
any person to make regular use of the property for disposal of waste.” He stated that the
City has not engaged in any of these types of activities and as a practical matter, the City
may want to remediate the property because it will have a difficult time finding who is
responsible for pollution on the property.
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-21 Approving the Purchase Agreement Between the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority and Mary and Karl Johnson.
The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Sanger opposed).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 6, 2010 through December
17, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:48:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,877.817015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAMEC GEOMATRIX INC
10,135.66DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
18,013.47
683.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANDERSEN, NORMAN
683.00
255.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
255.00
1,635.00HARD COAT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
703.46WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.23ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.29TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,189.29HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.29VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.29PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,320.96CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
190.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
307.62MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
307.62PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
465.95EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,600.96ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
149.29WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
307.63AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,375.00HOIGAARD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
307.62HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17,457.50
480.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFORECAST PUBLIC ARTWORKS
480.00
234.11IMPOUND LOT / WATER TOWER PROP WATER SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
899,979.73WEST END TIF DIST G&A TAX INCREMENT - REPAYMENT
900,213.84
217.50BROOKSIDE REDEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
187.50HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICES
905.507015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LEGAL SERVICES
3,303.00HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICES
2,757.45DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
87.00MILL CITY TIF ADMIN LEGAL SERVICES
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:48:50R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,457.95
100.00HARD COAT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
1,425.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,525.00
3,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESLOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
3,000.00
290.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAININGMOBIUS INC
290.00
400.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNAIOP
400.00
208.20DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
208.20
10.99DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
10.99
10.38DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
10.38
3,682.61DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNINGSEH
3,682.61
1,362.02DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
10,782.92DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
12,144.94
Report Totals 965,832.88
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 5a)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 3
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an Economic Development District).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District to
facilitate the proposed purchase and renovation of 7301 - 7317 W. Lake Street (the former Flame
Metals property)?
Hardcoat’s CAP application was reviewed at the November 8th Study Session where it was
favorably received. At its November 15th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of
December 20th for the creation of the proposed TIF district. Potential business terms that would
serve as the basis for a development contract were previewed at the December 13th Study
Session. It is now time to take the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the
creation of the TIF district which enables the City to allocate tax increment generated from the
proposed Hardcoat project to the Development Fund so as to reimburse a portion of the CAP
funds provided to Hardcoat for the proposed project.
Establishment of TIF districts also requires approval of the City Council. Thus, later in the
evening the City Council will hold a public hearing on this topic, after which it will likewise be
asked to approve the establishment of the Hardcoat TIF District.
BACKGROUND:
Hardcoat Inc. (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire 7301 - 7317 W. Lake Street (the
former Flame Metals property) located across the street to the south. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The industrial building is approximately 33,600
square feet and was constructed in 1963. It was in very poor condition with numerous building code
deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior has been emptied,
thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly
all the building’s operating systems have been removed.
Hardcoat’s plans include a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well
as the construction of a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new
windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new
energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities,
as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the
building. Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000
square feet of the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide
Hardcoat with future expansion capacity.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Request for Financial Assistance
Hardcoat has negotiated a Purchase Agreement with A & D Holdings LLC, (the current owner of
the Development property) for $1,010,000. The purchase price is $174,700 less than the
property’s current assessed value.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds is estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount,
Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in Construction Assistance: which equals approximately
33% of total renovation costs. When one adds the cost of the property ($1,010,000), the hard
costs related to the building renovation ($1,400,000), the cost of new equipment ($500,000), as
well as soft costs and permits estimated at ($136,500), the entire project will total nearly $3.05
million.
Proposed Funding Sources
As allowed by state statute, the source of the CAP funds is available tax increment revenue
generated by five of the City’s TIF districts. These funds will be disbursed from the
Development Fund. Given the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request, an Economic Development TIF
District is proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding provided to Hardcoat. It is
estimated that the TIF district could generate approximately $207,000 over its 9-year term. Such
an arrangement requires approval of an Interfund Loan Resolution.
Structure of the CAP Funds
CAP funds will be provided to Hardcoat upon prove-up that the property was purchased and the
proposed construction costs were incurred. In order to remain in compliance with the TIF Act,
the CAP funds will technically be applied to Hardcoat’s property acquisition costs as these are
considered “qualified costs” under the rules for Economic Development TIF Districts. The
funding will be structured as a forgivable loan through a mortgage. Provided the building is
held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5 years after project completion, the entirety
of the loan could be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project completion,
the loan must be repaid along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided.
TIF District Approvals
Hardcoat’s CAP application was reviewed at the November 8th Study Session where it was
favorably received. At its November 15th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of
December 20th for the creation of the proposed economic development TIF district. Business
terms that would serve as the basis for a development contract were previewed at the December
13th Study Session. The Planning Commission reviewed the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
Plan on December 15th and determined it was in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to reimburse the EDA for a portion of the CAP funds provided to Hardcoat, a new
economic development TIF district is proposed. Tax increment generated from this new district
will then be deposited back into the Development Fund. The proposed Hardcoat TIF District
consists of the two former Flame Metals parcels: 7301 & 7317 W. Lake Street. The proposed
TIF District is within the city’s Redevelopment Project Area as is statutorily required. Inclusion
of the proposed project within a designated Redevelopment Project Area gives the EDA/Council
the authority to assist with all the economic development actions necessary to implement
Hardcoat project.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan establishing the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District. The Plan was prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. TIF
Plans establish the geographic boundaries and financial parameters of a particular TIF district as well
as the findings which statutorily qualify the district. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed as
enabling legislation. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and the Developer are
contained in a separate Development Contract between the parties.
It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds
section of the proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project
budget.
Feasibility and Duration of the Hardcoat TIF District
The financial assistance to be provided to Hardcoat to facilitate the proposed project meets the
requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements
include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and
(3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s proposed project qualifies as an Economic Development
TIF District. It is estimated that upon completion the proposed project will generate
approximately $207,000 over the 9-year term of the district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Authorizing the establishment of the Hardcoat TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City to
any specific level of assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply creates the
funding vehicle that enables the EDA to reimburse itself for a portion of the CAP funds provided
to Hardcoat. The terms and amount of CAP assistance are specified within the Development
Contract with Hardcoat which also is to be considered at Monday night’s EDA meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hardcoat’s proposal to purchase and completely renovate the former Flame Metals building is
consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental
stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing Plan Summary
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
ESTABLISHING THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "EDA") desires the adoption of a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") for Redevelopment Project No. 1
(the "Project Area"), the establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District (the
"District") therein, and adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the
District (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively
herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive,
as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's consideration;
and
WHEREAS, the EDA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the
Plans to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the EDA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption of the Plans, and has requested that the City Planning Commission provide for
review of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on
the Plans upon published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic
development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and finds
that the Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a
need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built up and that the
adoption of the proposed Plans will help provide employment opportunities in the State
and will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and the
State because it will discourage commerce and industry from moving their operations to
another state or municipality and thereby serves a public purpose. The facts supporting
this finding are set forth in the Plans, which are incorporated by reference.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
2. The EDA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the
Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public
assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible.
3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded.
4. The EDA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from inside the District.
5. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing
thereon, the Plans, as presented to the EDA on this date, are hereby approved, established
and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator of the EDA.
6. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the EDA's advisors and legal
counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and
for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration
all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or Development
Agreement with any developer.
7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Economic Development Coordinator
of the EDA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota
Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
8. The Economic Development Coordinator of the EDA is authorized and directed to
forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor
certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes 469.177.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of St. Louis Park
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can
be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District ("District")
and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ("TIF Plan")
Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1,
which includes the establishment of the Hardcoat TIF District.
Type of TIF District: An Economic Development District
Parcel Numbers: 20-117-21-21-0093
17-117-21-34-0027
Proposed
Development:
The District is being created to facilitate the renovation of the existing Flame
Metals’ building by Hardcoat within the City. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial
building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. The
proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and
exterior of the building as well as the addition of approximately 1,500 square
feet of office/conference space on the north side of the building. Please see
Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description.
Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd.
1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District will be 8 years
after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by
the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2013. Thus, it is estimated
that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2021, or when the TIF Plan is
satisfied. If increment is received in 2012, the term of the District will be
2020. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the
legally required date.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $50,144
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 6
Page 2
Authorized uses:
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that
may be expended:
Land Acquisition......................................................................$50,000
Site Improvements/Preparation..............................................$160,000
Public Utilities .........................................................................$75,000
Streets and Sidewalks ..............................................................$32,861
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)............................................$37,619
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL...................................................$335,480
Interest .....................................................................................$20,706
PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL .......$376,186
See Subsection 2-10, pages 2-5 and 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization.
Form of financing: The EDA will be providing Hardcoat upfront funding from its Construction
Assistance Program in an amount up to $420,000 (as authorized through the
approved Spending Plan, pursuant to Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32,
which amended M.S. Section 469.176 by adding Subdivision 4m). The
District is being created to repay the EDA for a portion of these dollars as tax
increment is received.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. It is estimated that the
City will only utilize 5% of annual increment.
Interfund Loan
Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax increment
fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another
fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
4 Year Activity Rule
(§ 469.176 Subd. 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by approximately December 2014, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(§ 469.1763 Subd. 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be
expended or obligated to be expended.
Any obligations in the District made after approximately December 2015, will
not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 7
Page 3
MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 8
Page 4
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 9
As of December 16, 2010
Draft for Public Hearing
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
(an economic development district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
City of St. Louis Park
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: December 20, 2010
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 10
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-6
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-13
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-13
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Summary.............................................. 2-14
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District .......................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 11
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... F-1
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 12
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Hardcoat
Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the Economic Development Coordinator at the City of St. Louis Park.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 13
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of St. Louis Park (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Hardcoat
Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing district,
located in Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This District is being created pusuant to 2010 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 216, H.F. No. 2695, Section
31,which amended M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c by adding clause (d).
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing building within the City. Please see Appendix
A for further project information. The EDA is working towards finalizing a development agreement with
Hardcoat Incorporated for the renovation of the existing building. Commencement of the renovation is
scheduled to begin in the spring of 2011 and no later than July 1, 2011. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve
many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 14
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed
reuse of private property within the District will be for an office building/manufacturing
facility, and there will be continued operation of Redevelopment Project No. 1 after the
capital improvements within Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been completed.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is an
economic development district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 as defined below:
"Economic development district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any
project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds to be in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations
to another state or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
The District is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirements from clauses 1, 2 and 3.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, revenue derived from tax increment from an economic
development district may not be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate
subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities, if more
than 15 percent of the buildings and facilities (determined on the basis of square footage) are used for a
purpose other than:
(1) The manufacturing or production of tangible personal property, including processing resulting
in the change in condition of the property;
(2) Warehousing, storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail sales;
(3) Research and development related to the activities listed in items (1) or (2);
(4) Telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the property;
(5) Tourism facilities; or
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 15
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
(6) Qualified border retail facilities;
(7) Space necessary for and related to the activities listed in items (1) to (6)
For Districts which the request for certification was made after June 30, 2009, and no later than June 30,
2011, the City can find that the District to be established is an economic development district pursuant to
M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) as defined below:
Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) and the finding requirements of section 469.174,
subdivision 12, tax increments from an economic development district may be used to provide
improvements, loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments
consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities, if all the following conditions are met:
(1) the municipality finds that the project will create or retain jobs in this state, including
construction jobs, and that construction of the project would not have commenced before
July 1, 2011, without the authority providing assistance under the provisions of this
paragraph;
(2) construction of the project begins no later than July 1, 2011; and
(3) the request for certification of the district is made no later than June 30, 2011.
The City is establishing the District in order to assist an existing company with the renovation of a
manufacturing facility to be used for high-tech surface coating applications. The City finds that this
renovation will ensure the retention of 14 employees from its current location. The City anticipates the
retention or creation of additional construction jobs in connection with the renovation. The City has
confirmed that without tax increment financing assistance, the renovation would not commence before July
1, 2011 (see Appendix F for the relevant facts supporting these findings). With such assistance, construction
is scheduled to commence in early spring of 2011. If construction does not commence by such date, tax
increments may only be used for the purposes allowed under M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a).
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the
District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City
of the first tax increment is expected to be 2013. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2021, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2012, the term of the District will be 2020. The EDA
or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2010 for taxes payable 2011.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 16
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
in the payment year 2013) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2011, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2011. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of
the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2013. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$76,458
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$22,944
Fiscal Disparities Election $12,820
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$40,694
Original Local Tax Rate 1.23222 EstimatedPay 2011
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$50,144
Percent Retained by the EDA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 5% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 9. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $51,750.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have
been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 17
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed initially through funds available pursuant to the
City's duly approved Spending Plan, as authorized under Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32, which
amended M.S. Section 469.176 by adding Subdivision 4m. The City intends to provide up-front assistance
to the developer from Spending Plan funds, and to replenish these funds through an interfund loan/transfer
of tax increments from the District as received. The City reserves the right to issue bonds or incur other
indebtedness pursuant to this TIF Plan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a
formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the City to incur debt. The City will issue
bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are expected to be approximately $376,186, as
shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $326,186
Interest $50,000
TOTAL $376,186
The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $355,480. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-you-
go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded
indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the renovation of an existing building
within the City. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide up-front assistance
to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described above, and to reimburse itself for these costs through
tax increments as received. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of
property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the
District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the table
on the following page.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 18
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $50,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $160,000
Public Utilities $75,000
Streets and Sidewalks $32,861
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$37,619
PROJECT COST TOTAL $355,480
Interest $20,706
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $376,186
For purposes of OSA reporting forms, uses of funds include interfund loans, bond principal, TIF Note
principal, and transfers, all in the principal amount of up to $376,186. These amounts are not cumulative, but
represent the various forms of "bonds" included within the concept of bonded indebtedness under the TIF Act.
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D.
Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by
modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so
long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the
EDA may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in the table
above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project (including
administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other terms and
conditions of this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, the EDA or City must calculate fiscal disparities using
the following method of computation:
(b) The following method of computation applies to any economic development district for which the
request for certification was made after June 30, 1997, and to any other district for which the
governing body, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to M.S., Section
469.177, Subd. 3, elects:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal
disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude
any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original
year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to
M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the
original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no
captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity
is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 19
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion
thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with
the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from
the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates.
The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax
capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax
generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the
original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax
increment of the authority.
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature.
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 20
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; and
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Estimated
2010/Pay 2011
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,323,583,748 40,694 0.0031%
City of St. Louis Park 50,983,386 40,694 0.0798%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 48,177,047 40,694 0.0845%
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 21
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Estimated Pay
2011
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.462500 37.53% 40,694 18,821
City of St. Louis Park 0.440200 35.72% 40,694 17,913
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.221640 17.99% 40,694 9,019
Other 0.107880 8.75%40,694 4,390
Total 1.232220 100.00%50,144
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2011 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2011 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2011 rates, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $326,185;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. A minimal impact
of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses,
police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and
of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its staff.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction and are sprinklered.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $58,681;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 22
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $122,417;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings:
• Construction Assistance Program Application by Hardcoat, LLC, 2010
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 23
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
of the original TIF Plan. If the District qualifies for certification only under M.S. Section 469.176, Subd.
4c(d), than the District boundaries may not be enlarged after July 1, 2011.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced following
the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor, but shall not be enlarged after
five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If an
economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the
addition to the District meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12, must be documented in writing
and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of
parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District
equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the
EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced
by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. Economic
Development districts, for which the request for certification date was made after June 30, 2009, may be
enlarged provided the request for certification date of the enlargement is made prior to June 30, 2011.
The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
EDA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 24
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor
for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and
auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately December
2015 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 25
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant
to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the EDA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. If the request for certification
of the District was made after June 30, 2009 and no later than June 30, 2011 and construction commenced
in the District by July 1, 2011, tax increments from the District may also be used to provide improvements,
loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of
buildings and ancillary facilities. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration
(up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 26
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the EDA
or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse
for the EDA or City should the development not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Economic Development Coordinator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and
the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow
in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less
the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the
District and the use of tax increments.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 27
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082.
Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for
the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and
regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of
government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues
derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
Subsection 2-27. Summary
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, and create and retain jobs, including construction jobs, in the City. The TIF Plan for the District
was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105,
telephone (651) 697-8500.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 28
Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Project Description
Hardcoat Inc, (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) is looking to acquire the former Flame Metals property located
across the street to the south at 7317 W. Lake Street. The company plans to renovate the building and site,
and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square feet and
was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies. Following
Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building's interior has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and
many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems have
been removed.
The proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well
as the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet of office/conference space on the north side of the
building. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock doors, new offices
and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new
parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition
for office/conference space. Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately
25,000 square feet of the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide
Hardcoat with future expansion capacity.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 29
Appendix B-1
Appendix B
Maps of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 30
Appendix B-2
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 31
Appendix C-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
20-117-21-21-0093 7317 Lake Street W A&D Holdings, LLC
17-117-21-34-0027 7301 Lake Street W A&D Holdings, LLC
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 32
Appendix D-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 33
12/14/2010Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Hardcoat TIF DistrictCity of St. Louis ParkFlame Metal RedevelopmentASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:Economic DevelopmentMaximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 123.2220% Pay 2011 EstDistrict Name/Number:Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)123.2220% Pay 2011 EstCounty District #:State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)50.0000% Pay 2011 EstFirst Year Construction or Inflation on Value2011Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.16692% Pay 2011 EstExisting District - Specify No. Years RemainingInflation Rate - Every Year:5.00%PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES:Interest Rate:1.00%Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%Present Value Date:1-Feb-11Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)First Period Ending1-Aug-11First $150,0001.50%Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2011Over $150,0002.00%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For District:2013Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Years of Tax Increment9Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2021Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)0.75%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res.)1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio34.8706% Pay 2011First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate129.3270% Pay 2011 EstOver $500,0001.25%Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandBuildingTotal Of Value Used Original Original Tax OriginalAfter ConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value Market Value Market Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Area/Phase20-117-21-21-00937317 Lake St 742,000 248,000990,000100% 990,000 Pay 2011 C/I Pref.19,050 C/I Pref.19,050 117-117-21-34-00277301 Lake St 194,7000194,700100% 194,700 Pay 2011 C/I3,894 C/I3,894 1936,700 248,000 1,184,7001,184,700 22,94422,944Note:1. Base values are for pay 2011.2. Located in SD 283, WS 3. BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Hard Coat\Copy of TIF Run 11-18-10 - For Fiscal ImpactsEDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 34
12/14/2010Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Hardcoat TIF DistrictCity of St. Louis ParkFlame Metal RedevelopmentPropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearTotal Market ValueMarketTaxProjectCompleted Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Sq. Ft./Units Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax Capacity2011201220132014 PayableInd35,000752,625,000 C/I Pref. 51,750100% 100%100%100%2013TOTAL2,625,00051,750 Subtotal Residential000 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.35,0002,625,00051,750 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from discussions with Assessor on 9-14-10.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxes TaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitInd51,750 18,046 33,70441,53123,338 25,8754,38295,126 2.72TOTAL 51,750 18,046 33,70441,53123,338 25,8754,38295,126Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes95,126less State-wide Taxes(25,875)less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(23,338)less Market Value Taxes(4,382)less Base Value Taxes(18,413)Annual Gross TIF 23,118 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?TAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Hard Coat\Copy of TIF Run 11-18-10 - For Fiscal ImpactsEDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 35
12/14/2010Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Hardcoat TIF DistrictCity of St. Louis ParkFlame Metal RedevelopmentTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal CapturedLocalAnnual Semi-Annual StateAdmin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% ofTaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross TaxAuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC CapacityCapacityIncremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% IncrementValueYrs.YearDate- - - - 08/01/11- - - - 02/01/12- - - - 08/01/12- - - - 02/01/13100% 51,750 (22,944) (10,045) 18,761 123% 23,118 11,559 (42) (1,152) 10,366 10,110 0.5 2013 08/01/13100% 51,750 (22,944) (10,045) 18,761 123% 23,118 11,559 (42) (1,152) 10,366 20,170 1 2013 02/01/14100% 54,338 (22,944) (10,045) 21,349 123% 26,306 13,153 (47) (1,311) 11,795 31,561 1.5 2014 08/01/14100% 54,338 (22,944) (10,045) 21,349 123% 26,306 13,153 (47) (1,311) 11,795 42,895 2 2014 02/01/15100% 57,054 (22,944) (10,045) 24,066 123% 29,654 14,827 (53) (1,477) 13,296 55,607 2.5 2015 08/01/15100% 57,054 (22,944) (10,045) 24,066 123% 29,654 14,827 (53) (1,477) 13,296 68,257 3 2015 02/01/16100% 59,907 (22,944) (10,045) 26,918 123% 33,169 16,585 (60) (1,652) 14,872 82,335 3.5 2016 08/01/16100% 59,907 (22,944) (10,045) 26,918 123% 33,169 16,585 (60) (1,652) 14,872 96,344 4 2016 02/01/17100% 62,902 (22,944) (10,547) 29,411 123% 36,241 18,121 (65) (1,806) 16,250 111,573 4.5 2017 08/01/17100% 62,902 (22,944) (10,547) 29,411 123% 36,241 18,121 (65) (1,806) 16,250 126,727 5 2017 02/01/18100% 66,048 (22,944) (11,074) 32,029 123% 39,467 19,733 (71) (1,966) 17,696 143,148 5.5 2018 08/01/18100% 66,048 (22,944) (11,074) 32,029 123% 39,467 19,733 (71) (1,966) 17,696 159,487 6 2018 02/01/19100% 69,350 (22,944) (11,628) 34,778 123% 42,854 21,427 (77) (2,135) 19,215 177,139 6.5 2019 08/01/19100% 69,350 (22,944) (11,628) 34,778 123% 42,854 21,427 (77) (2,135) 19,215 194,704 7 2019 02/01/20100% 72,817 (22,944) (12,210) 37,664 123% 46,410 23,205 (84) (2,312) 20,809 213,632 7.5 2020 08/01/20100% 72,817 (22,944) (12,210) 37,664 123% 46,410 23,205 (84) (2,312) 20,809 232,466 82020 02/01/21100% 76,458 (22,944) (12,820) 40,694 123% 50,144 25,072 (90) (2,498) 22,484 252,714 8.5 2021 08/01/21100% 76,458 (22,944) (12,820) 40,694 123% 50,144 25,072 (90) (2,498) 22,484 272,861 9 2021 02/01/22 Total327,364 (1,179) (32,619) 293,567 Present Value From 02/01/2011 Present Value Rate 1.00%304,275 (1,095) (30,318) 272,861 Note:1. If increment is received in 2012, the District will be one year shorterPrepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\St. Louis Park\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Hard Coat\Copy of TIF Run 11-18-10 - For Fiscal ImpactsEDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 36
Appendix E-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 37
Appendix F-1
Appendix F
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as
follows:
1. Finding that the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district as
defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
The District is a contiguous geographic area within the City's Redevelopment Project No. 1, delineated
in the TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax
increment. The District is in the public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry, or
manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; it will increase employment
in the state; and it will preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. The District will accomplish these
objectives by providing financial assistance to Hardcoat Inc., a manufacturer of surface coatings for high-
tech industrial applications, for the purpose of acquiring and renovating an existing 33,600 sq. ft.
building, along with an approximately 1,500 sq. ft. addition, in order to improve and expand its existing
business. Construction of the addition will facilitate use of a portion of the facility by other
complementary businesses in the near term, and will allow room for expansion by Hardcoat in the longer
term.
In addition, pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), the City finds that the private development
contemplated by and to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain jobs in the state,
including construction jobs, that construction of the development will occur before July 1, 2011, and that
the construction of the development would not have commenced before July 1, 2011, without the tax
increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Plan.
2.Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that the building slated for development proposed in this plan is currently a code-deficient, vacant
manufacturing facility that meets the City's objectives for economic development. The proposed
Developer of the property is a small but established company with potential for growth, but limited
financial means in the near term to achieve that growth without public assistance. In addition, the cost
of land acquisition, as well as the improvements required to bring the facility up to code and make it
attractive to other businesses, makes development of the facility infeasible without City assistance.
Finally, the City's fiscal consultant has analyzed a Developer pro forma and has concluded that the
Developer's need for assistance is reasonable and justifiable, and that the Developer would not be able
to commence its renovation activities without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: While the property could be sold to another developer for
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 38
Appendix F-2
some other use, these scenarios are not feasible in the market due to various constraints. First, the
location is not conducive to retail development due to its location within the city (these parcels and
surrounding are zoned/designated for industrial use). Second, although the property could be
redeveloped for office use, the office market in the City is extremely soft and it is unlikely that office
developers would choose to develop this entire site for office use, given the availability of plentiful
existing office space in the surrounding area. Finally, due to the condition of the property, any developer
looking to renovate the site for industrial use would need assistance to address the high costs associated
with required code improvements to occupy the property.
Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase
without the use of tax increment financing is $0.
b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $1,440,300 (see
Appendix D and the table below)
c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district
permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $304,275 (see Appendix D and the table below).
d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that
no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $1,136,025 (the
amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 1,184,700
New Market Value - Estimate 2,625,000
Difference 1,440,300
Present Value of Tax Increment 304,275
Difference 1,136,025
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 1,136,025
3.Finding that the TIF Plan for Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan
for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4.Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District will
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development
of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will transform an existing code-deficient vacant building into
a high-quality manufacturing facility in the City, resulting in increased employment in the City and State
through the retention of existing jobs and the addition of between six and 25 new employees as the
business expands, along with additional jobs related to construction of the facility.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7a)
Subject: Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District Page 39
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Contract for Private Development between the EDA and M & L Properties, LLC (Hardcoat Inc).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving the Contract for Private Development between the
EDA and M & L Properties, LLC (Hardcoat Inc).
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in
connection with the Hardcoat TIF District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to approve the proposed Contract for Private Development between the
EDA and M & L Properties, LLC to facilitate Hardcoat’s purchase and renovation of the former
Flame Metals property (7301 - 7317 West Lake St.)?
BACKGROUND:
The EDA reviewed Hardcoat Inc’s request for Construction Assistance Program (CAP) assistance at
the November 8th Study Session. Staff provided a preview of the business terms that served as the
basis for the proposed Development Contract with Hardcoat Inc in a report for the December 13th
Study Session.
Hardcoat Inc. (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire 7301 - 7317 W. Lake Street (the
former Flame Metals property) located across the street to the south.. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The industrial building is approximately 33,600
square feet and was constructed in 1963. It was in very poor condition with numerous building code
deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior has been emptied,
thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly
all the building’s operating systems have been removed.
Hardcoat’s plans include a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well
as the construction of a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new
windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new
energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities,
as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the
building. Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000
square feet of the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide
Hardcoat with future expansion capacity.
In order to pursue the above project Hardcoat applied for up to $420,000 in financial assistance
through the Construction Assistance Program (CAP). Hardcoat’s application was reviewed at the
November 8th Study Session where it was favorably received.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
Hardcoat’s project qualifies as an Economic Development TIF District. Establishing a TIF
district in conjunction with the project will allow the EDA to reimburse a portion of the CAP
funding provided to Hardcoat. A public hearing date for the establishment of the TIF district is
also scheduled for December 20, 2010.
Request for Financial Assistance
Hardcoat has negotiated a Purchase Agreement with A & D Holdings LLC, (the current owner of
the Development property) for $1,010,000. The purchase price is $174,700 less than the
property’s current assessed value.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds is estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount,
Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in Construction Assistance: which equals approximately
33% of total renovation costs. This amount could be reduced based upon more refinements to
Hardcoat’s cost estimates and whatever cost savings the company receives through Xcel
Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program to which it recently applied. When one adds the
cost of the property ($1,010,000), the hard costs related to the building renovation ($1,400,000),
the cost of new equipment ($500,000), as well as soft costs and permits estimated at ($136,500),
the entire project will total nearly $3.05 million.
Proposed Funding Sources
The source of the CAP funds is available tax increment revenue generated by five of the City’s
TIF districts. These funds will be disbursed from the Development Fund. Given the size of
Hardcoat’s CAP request, an Economic Development TIF District is proposed to reimburse a
portion of the CAP funding provided to Hardcoat. It is estimated that the TIF district could
generate approximately $207,000 over its 9-year term. Such an arrangement requires approval of
the proposed Interfund Loan Resolution.
Structure of the CAP Funds
CAP funds will be provided to Hardcoat upon prove-up that the property was purchased and the
proposed construction costs were incurred. In order to remain in compliance with the TIF Act,
the CAP funds will technically be applied to Hardcoat’s property acquisition costs as these are
considered “qualified costs” under the rules for Economic Development TIF Districts. The
funding will be structured as a forgivable loan through a mortgage. Provided the building is
held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5 years after project completion, the entirety
of the loan could be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project completion,
the loan must be repaid along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided.
Project Schedule
Hardcoat Inc. expects to close on the property within the next couple months. It plans to
commence interior building renovations immediately thereafter in the first quarter of 2011.
Exterior renovations and construction will begin in the spring and should be completed prior to
summer’s end.
Current/Proposed Market Value
The subject property’s 2010 assessed value is $1,184,700. The 2010 taxes payable for this
property total $37,542. Upon renovation the property would have an estimated market value of
approximately $2,625,000; an increase of $1,440,300. Total taxes payable would be
approximately $95,125; an increase of $57,583.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
Job Creation
Hardcoat currently has 14 employees and all will be retained in the relocation to the new
building. As a result of its expanded operations and the new business it anticipates generating,
Hardcoat believes an additional 6 to 25 employees could potentially be hired in the next 5 years.
Additional labor would be involved with the building renovation and construction of the small
addition. Other jobs would also be created when a tenant leases the balance of the building.
Development Contract
The following is a summary of the Development Contract between the EDA and M & L
Properties, LLC (otherwise known as Hardcoat Inc or “Developer”), for the purchase and
renovation of 7301 - 7317 West Lake St..
1. All parties agree that the Developer will be solely responsible for the acquisition of the
subject two parcels that constitute the Development Property and that the City/EDA has no
obligation to acquire the Development Property.
2. The Developer acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to
the condition of the soils on the Development Property or the fitness of the Development
Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which
the Developer may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the
Developer under the Contract neither implies any responsibility by the EDA or the City
for any contamination of the Development Property nor imposes any obligation on such
parties to participate in any cleanup of the Development Property.
3. Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA, the
City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or
actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on
or in the Development Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing
building).
4. The EDA has no obligation to pay relocation benefits with regard to the proposed project.
5. The EDA has determined that, in order to make the proposed project financially feasible
and to expedite such development and stimulate the retention and creation of jobs, including
construction jobs pursuant to the Job Creation Act, it is necessary to provide the Developer
with a CAP Loan for a portion of the acquisition costs of the Development Property (the
“Acquisition Costs”), subject to the following terms:
a) Terms. To assist the Developer with payment of the Acquisition Costs incurred by
the Developer, the EDA will provide the Developer with the CAP Loan in the
principal amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the Construction Costs. The
EDA shall loan 33% of the CAP Loan funds to Developer within 30 days of
Developer having:
(i) submitted and obtained Authority approval of financing in accordance and
(ii) delivered to the EDA written evidence satisfactory to the EDA that Developer has
incurred and paid the Construction Costs for which reimbursement is sought,
which evidence must include copies of the paid invoices or other comparable
evidence for the Construction Costs. Such invoices or other evidence shall be
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
submitted to the EDA for payment on a monthly basis following commencement
of construction of the Minimum Improvements. Developer may submit invoices
on a more frequent basis if the invoice or invoices submitted total more than
$50,000. All invoices must be submitted no later than December 1, 2011.
b) Construction of the Minimum Improvements must commence prior to July 1, 2011,
and no extensions of the commencement date will be considered. If the construction
has not commenced by such date, the EDA has no further obligations under this
agreement.
c) The Developer understands and acknowledges that the CAP Loan must be fully
repaid, along with accrued interest at the rate of 6.0%, if the Developer fails to
maintain the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition, if a Transfer of
the Development Property occurs at any time before the Termination Date, or if the
EDA exercises its right to terminate this Agreement as a remedy for any Event of
Default. Acquisition Costs exceeding the principal amount of the CAP Loan are the
sole responsibility of Developer.
6. The EDA has determined that the total assistance loaned to the Developer is the lesser of
$420,000 or 33% of the Construction Costs. This amount represents the total to be
invested by the EDA.
a) The EDA will treat the above assistance as an interfund loan. The total principal
amount of the Interfund Loan shall be the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the
Construction Costs. The EDA will pledge Available Tax Increment from the TIF
District to payment of the Interfund Loan. The Developer has no rights or interest in
any Tax Increment.
7. The parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in the Contract
does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act.
The Developer releases and waives any claim against the EDA arising from application
of the Business Subsidy Act to the Contract, including without limitation any claim that
the EDA failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement.
8. The parties agree and understand that the Contract is subject to the job retainment and
creation objectives of the Job Creation Act. Accordingly, through the use of the CAP loan
and other financing, the Developer will create and/or retain jobs in the construction industry
and, once the Minimum Improvements are completed, will retain his current 14 full-time
equivalent employees in the City of St. Louis Park and, as Developer’s business expands,
create new job opportunities, presently projected to be at least six new full-time equivalent
jobs (annualized 2,080 hours per job).
9. The Developer must submit to the City a written report regarding job and wage goals and
results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2012 and
continuing until the date the job goals are met; or (ii) if the goals are not met, the date the
CAP Loan is repaid.
10. The Developer agrees that it will construct or cause construction of the Minimum
Improvements on the Development Property in accordance with the approved
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 5
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the Developer retains
ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and maintain, preserve
and keep the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition.
11. Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall
submit to the EDA Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements acceptable to the
EDA. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements and shall be in conformity with the Contract, the Redevelopment Plan and
all applicable State and local laws and regulations.
12. If the Developer desires to make any material change (meaning changes that increase or
decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more) in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Developer shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The EDA’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be
unreasonably withheld.
13. The Developer shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by
July 1, 2011. The Developer shall complete the construction of the Minimum
Improvements by December 1, 2011. All work with respect to the Minimum
Improvements to be constructed by the Developer shall be in conformity with the
Construction Plans as submitted by the Developer and approved by the EDA.
14. Within 30 days after completion of the Minimum Improvements the EDA Representative
shall deliver to the Developer a Certificate of Completion.
a) If the EDA Representative shall refuse or fail to provide the Certificate, the EDA
Representative shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Developer,
provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in what respects the
Developer has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with
the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or
acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the EDA, for the Developer to take or
perform in order for the EDA to issue the Certificate of Completion. Issuance of the
Certificate of Completion shall not be unreasonably withheld.
15. The Developer shall, with the EDA execute an Assessment Agreement specifying an
assessor’s minimum Market Value for the Development Property and Minimum
Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum Market Value shall be
$2,425,000 as of January 2, 2012, and each January 2 thereafter.
16. The EDA agrees to subordinate its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage
securing construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-
approved subordination agreement.
17. Developer agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Agreement or the Redevelopment
Property (except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the
prior written consent of the EDA, except for construction mortgage financing and/or
permanent financing. The EDA's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed. The EDA agrees to provide its consent or refusal to consent to
Developer in writing within 10 days after a request for such consent from Developer.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 6
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
18. Developer agrees that the EDA and the City (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be
liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any
loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or
resulting from any defect in the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements.
Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties and further agrees to hold the
Parties harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by the
acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the
Development Property.
19. Developer agrees until the Maturity Date that it shall not discriminate upon the basis of
race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or
occupancy of the Development Property or any improvements erected or to be erected
thereon.
20. The Developer agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a
sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, payday loan agency, a
tattoo business; or a gun business.
Business Subsidy
The assistance provided to the Developer under the Contract does not constitute a “business
subsidy” under the Minnesota Business Subsidy Act because the purchase price of the Development
Property equals at least 70% of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Development
Property for the 2010 assessment year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc) up to $420,000 through the Construction Assistance
Program to purchase and renovate the former Flame Metals property. Such funds would be
provided on a reimbursement basis and as a forgivable loan from available tax increment
generated by the City’s various TIF districts. It is also proposed that the EDA create an
Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with this project so as to allow the EDA to
reimburse its self approximately $207,000 of the above assistance over the 9-year life of the
district.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hardcoat’s proposed project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates
and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution of Approval
Resolution Interfund Loan
Development Contract between the EDA and M & L Properties, LLC
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 7
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FO PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING A CONSTRUCTION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN TO M & L PROPERTIES,
LLC, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS,
COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR SUCH LOAN
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Loan.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City,
Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District (the
“TIF Districts”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), have adopted a spending plan
(the “Spending Plan”) pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job
Creation Act”) for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project using tax
increments from the TIF Districts to stimulate job creation, and have established a Construction
Assistance Program (“CAP”) to provide further guidelines for use of the tax increments from the
TIF Districts under the Spending Plan.
Pursuant to the Job Creation Act, the Authority is authorized to provide loans, interest rate
subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or
substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities to create or retain jobs. Such
assistance is payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF Districts and
authorized for such use under the Spending Plan. The Authority hereby finds and determines that
it is in the best interests of the Authority to provide a CAP Loan to M & L Properties, LLC (the
“Developer”) for the purpose of financing certain land acquisition costs (the “Acquisition
Costs”) in connection with the purchase, renovation and expansion of a manufacturing facility by
the Developer (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.02. Approval of Agreement; Terms of the Loan. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes
the President and Executive Director to execute the Contract for Private Development between
the Authority and the Developer (the “Agreement”) in substantially the form presented to the
Board, 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 Agreement by
those officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval. All capitalized terms in this
resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise.
(b) Pursuant to the Agreement, the Authority will loan to the Developer the CAP Loan in
the principal amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the actual costs of construction and
renovation of the Minimum Improvements, evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) and
secured by a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) to be executed and delivered to the Authority by the
Developer in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Proceeds of the
CAP Loan shall be disbursed in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Agreement. The Note shall
bear interest at the rate of 6.0% per annum, subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 8
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
Section 2. Repayment of Loan. The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest
shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after written
notification by the Authority to the Developer of the occurrence of an Event of Default as
defined in the Agreement or Mortgage; or (ii) ten (10) days after the Developer makes or allows
to be made any total or partial transfer, sale, assignment, conveyance, lease, or transfer in any
other mode, of the Development Property, if such transfer occurs within five (5) years after the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as provided in Section
4.4 of the Agreement. If the Developer does not sell the Development Property within five (5)
years of the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, no
payments of interest shall be payable on this Note and the principal balance shall be forgiven.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 9
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARDCOAT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board Of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The Authority has established the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
(the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project") pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the “TIF Act”) and Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (the “HRA Act”), as amended.
1.02. The Authority may incur certain costs related to the TIF District, which costs may
be financed on a temporary basis from available Authority or City funds.
1.03. Under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the Authority is authorized
to advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally made in
order to finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF Act.
1.04. The Authority has previously established a Spending Plan (the “Spending Plan”)
pursuant to Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job Creation Act”), pursuant to which the
Authority may provide funds from certain designated preexisting tax increment financing
districts including the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, and Elmwood tax
increment financing districts (the “Prior TIF Districts”) to assist private developers and increase
the creation of jobs, and has approved its Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) as a
framework for such private assistance.
1.05. The Authority has entered into a Contract for Private Development dated as of
December 20, 2010 (the “Agreement”) with M & L Properties, LLC (the “Developer”), under
which the Authority will (among other things) provide a forgivable CAP loan to the Developer to
assist with a portion of the costs of acquisition of the Development Property, in the principal
amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the Construction Costs incurred (as such terms are
defined in the Agreement).
1.06. By structuring the loan to the Developer as a forgivable loan, the Authority may
forgo repayment of the loan. Such loan forgiveness represents an advance of Authority funds in
the maximum amount of $420,000.
1.07. The Authority has also determined that it will advance the actual costs of
consultants and attorneys retained by the Authority in connection with creation and
administration of the TIF District and the negotiation and preparation of the Agreement and other
incidental agreements and documents related to the development contemplated hereunder (the
“Administrative Costs”), in an amount not to exceed $80,000.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 10
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
1.07. The Authority intends to designate such advances as an interfund loan in
accordance with the terms of this resolution and the TIF Act.
Section 2. Repayment of Interfund Loan.
2.01. The Authority hereby authorizes the advance of up to $500,000 from the
Spending Plan funds from the Prior TIF Districts to pay the CAP Loan advances and
Administrative Costs as described in the Agreement, and will reimburse itself for such advances
and Administrative Costs together with interest at the rate of 4.0% per annum (the “Interfund
Loan”). Interest shall accrue on the principal amount of each advance from the date of such
advance. The interest rate is no more than the greatest of the rate specified under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 270.75 and Section 549.09, both in effect for calendar year 2010. The interest
rate will not fluctuate.
2.02. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-
annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a “Payment Date”), commencing on the first
Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any
other dates determined by the City Manager, through the date of last receipt of tax increment
from the TIF District.
2.03. Payments on the Interfund Loan will be made solely from Available Tax
Increment, defined as 100% of the tax increment from the TIF District received by the Authority
from Hennepin County in the six-month period before any Payment Date. Payments shall be
applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Payments on this Interfund Loan
may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or
in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future
interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment.
2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this resolution is pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty.
2.05. This resolution is evidence of an internal borrowing by the Authority in
accordance with Section 469.178, subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, and is a limited obligation
payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this
resolution. The Interfund Loan shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State
of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority
and the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be
obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto
except out of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any
principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid
after the final Payment Date.
2.06. The Authority may at any time make a determination to forgive the outstanding
principal amount and accrued interest on the Interfund Loan to the extent permissible under law.
2.07. The Authority may from time to time amend the terms of this Resolution to the
extent permitted by law, including without limitation amendment to the payment schedule.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b) Page 11
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon execution in full of the
Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
Second Draft
December 15, 2010
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
Dated as of: _____________, 2010
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI)
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 12
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions................................................................................................................2
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority.............................................................................6
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Developer..................................................6
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Public Development Costs
Section 3.1. Status of Development Property..............................................................................8
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions.......................................................................................8
Section 3.3 Relocation................................................................................................................8
Section 3.4 CAP Loan.................................................................................................................9
Section 3.5. Interfund Loan .......................................................................................................10
Section 3.6. Business Subsidy ...................................................................................................11
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ..............................................................................10
Section 4.2. Construction Plans.................................................................................................10
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction.................................................12
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ......................................................................................12
Section 4.5. Records ..................................................................................................................14
Section 4.6. Vacation of Trail Property.....................................................................................14
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance................................................................................................................16
Section 5.2. Subordination.........................................................................................................17
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes.........................................................................18
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ....................................................................................................18
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement..........................................................................................18
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 13
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 ii
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally................................................................................................................19
Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage..................................................19
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination..................................................................................19
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development.........................................................................20
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Developer’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement.....................................................................................20
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants................................................................21
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .....................................................................................23
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default..............................................................................................23
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive............................................................................................24
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ....................................................24
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees.........................................................................................................24
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable.............................25
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity............................................................................25
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use................................................................................................25
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed........................................................................25
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections...............................................................................25
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ............................................................................................25
Section 10.7. Counterparts...........................................................................................................26
Section 10.8. Recording...............................................................................................................26
Section 10.9. Amendment............................................................................................................26
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals..............................................................................................26
TESTIMONIUM ...........................................................................................................................27
SIGNATURES ..............................................................................................................................27
SCHEDULE A Development Property
SCHEDULE B CAP Loan Resolution
SCHEDULE C Interfund Loan Resolution
SCHEDULE D Certificate of Completion
SCHEDULE E Site Plan
SCHEDULE F Assessment Agreement
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 14
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 1
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the ____ day of _________, 2009, by and between the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), a public body corporate and
politic under the laws of Minnesota, and M & L Properties, LLC (the “Developer”), a Minnesota
limited liability company.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090
to 469.1081 (the “Act”) and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a
resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and
redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City, and in this connection created the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter
referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain
activities to prepare such real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise;
and
WHEREAS, the Developer intends to acquire certain property (the “Development
Property”) in the Project Area to redevelop on that property an existing manufacturing facility, as
further described herein (the “Minimum Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has previously established the Victoria Ponds, Park Center
Housing, CSM, Mill City, Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax
Increment Financing Districts (the “Prior TIF Districts”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, made up of property in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the City and Authority have duly established a Spending Plan (the “Spending
Plan”) for the TIF Districts pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job
Creation Act”), which authorizes the use of tax increments from the TIF Districts to provide
improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development
consisting of construction that will create or retain jobs, and have further implemented a
Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) which provides policy guidelines for such use of tax
increments pursuant to the Spending Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has established the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
(the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended,
made up of property in the Project Area including the Development Property; and
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 15
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 2
WHEREAS, the Authority intends to provide assistance to the Developer pursuant to the
CAP and Spending Plan, and to reimburse itself for such expenditures under the Spending Plan
through tax increments generated from the TIF District pursuant to an interfund loan, as more
fully described herein; and
WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the development of the Development Property
pursuant to and in general fulfillment of this Agreement, conforms to the Spending Plan, CAP
and Job Creation Act and is in the vital and best interests of the City, will promote the health,
safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and will be in accord with the public purposes and
provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has
been undertaken and is being assisted.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 16
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 3
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Acquisition Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.4(a) hereof.
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Affiliate” means with respect to any entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited
liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization
or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such
Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common
control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company
or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such
entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of
management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by
contract or otherwise.
“Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person
designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of
this Agreement.
“Available Tax Increment” has the meaning provided in the Authorizing Resolution.
“Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which
the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized
by law or executive order to close.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as
amended.
“CAP” means the City’s Construction Assistance Program, adopted by the City Council
and Authority on July 19, 2010.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 17
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 4
“CAP Loan” means the loan, substantially in the form contained in the Loan Resolution,
to be delivered by the Authority to the Developer in accordance with Section 3.4 hereof to
reimburse the Developer for Public Development Costs.
“CAP Loan Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form
of attached Schedule B to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the CAP Loan.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
“Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Developer pursuant to
Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
“Construction Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.4(b) hereof.
“Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Developer on the Development Property which (a)
shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are
submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the
following: (1) site plan; (2) floor plan; (3) cross sections of each (length and width); (4)
elevations (all sides); (5) landscape plan; and (6) such other plans or supplements to the
foregoing plans as the Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and
quality of the proposed construction work.
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“Developer” means M & L Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or its
permitted successors and assigns.
“Development Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this
Agreement, provided that upon filing of a final plat of such property, the platted legal description
will control.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Developer listed in Article IX of this
Agreement.
“Holder” means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
“Interfund Loan” means the interfund loan described in Section 3._ hereof.
“Interfund Loan Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the
form of attached Schedule C to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the Interfund Loan.
“Job Creation Act” means Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 18
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 5
“Minimum Improvements” means renovation on the Development Property of an existing
industrial facility containing approximately 33,600 square feet, and construction of an
approximately 1,500 square-foot addition, both to be used for manufacturing or industrial
purposes and associated office space, along with associated parking lot and landscaping.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Developer that is secured, in whole or in
part, with the Development Property and that is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement.
“Parcel” means any parcel of the Development Property.
“Prior TIF Districts” means the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City,
Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing Districts
previously created by the City and the Authority.
“Project” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Project No. 1.
“Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
“Spending Plan” means the Spending Plan for the Prior TIF Districts approved by the City
Council and Authority on July 19, 2010, pursuant to the Job Creation Act.
“State” means the state of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes that is paid with respect to
the Development Property and that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the
Tax Increment Act.
“Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended.
“Termination Date” means five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of
completion for the Minimum Improvements or earlier termination pursuant to this Agreement.
“TIF District” means the Hardcoat tax increment financing district created by the City
and Authority on December 20, 2010.
“Tax Increment Plan” or “TIF Plan” means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
TIF District approved by the City Council on December 20, 2010, and as it may be amended.
“Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the
tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 19
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 6
“Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof.
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking
to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles,
prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements,
litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action,
directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the
Authority or City in exercising their rights under this Agreement), including without limitation
condemnation or threat of condemnation of any portion of the Development Property, which
directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays experienced by the
Developer in obtaining permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of
the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this
Agreement, so long as the Construction Plans have been approved in accordance with
Section 4.2 hereof.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 20
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 7
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. (a) The Authority is an economic
development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the
provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement
and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum
Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Developer in obtaining
necessary administrative and land use approvals and financing pursuant to Section 7.1 hereof.
(c) The Authority will make the CAP Loan, subject to all the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
(d) The activities of the Authority are undertaken pursuant to the TIF Act and Job
Creation Act for the purpose of fostering the development and redevelopment of certain real
property that is occupied by a substandard and obsolete building, which will provide
employment opportunities (including construction jobs), revitalize this portion of the Project
Area, and increase the tax base.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Developer is a limited liability company, duly established and in good
standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its
articles of organization or bylaws, is duly qualified as a domestic limited liability company and
authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has
duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by proper action of
its members.
(b) If the conditions precedent to construction occur, the Developer will construct the
Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Redevelopment
Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to,
environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations).
(c) The Developer will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and
approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Developer has received no written notice or other written communication
from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Developer or the Authority in the
Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than
those notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). The Developer is aware of
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 21
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 8
no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid
claim under any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(e) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of,
the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness,
agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it
is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(f) The proposed construction of the Minimum Improvements by the Developer
hereunder would not have commenced before July 1, 2011 but for the assistance being provided
by the Authority hereunder.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 22
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 9
ARTICLE III
Property Acquisition; Acquisition Costs
Section 3.1. Status of Development Property. The Development Property consists of the
Parcels described in Schedule A. As of the date of this Agreement the Developer has entered
into purchase agreements to acquire all Parcels of the Development Property. The Authority has
no obligation to acquire the Development Property.
Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions. (a) The Developer acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the
Development Property or the fitness of the Development Property for construction of the
Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property, and that the assistance provided to the Developer under this Agreement neither implies
any responsibility by the Authority or the City for any contamination of the Development
Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the
Development Property.
(b) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the
Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the
City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions
arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the
Development Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing building),
unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the
actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or
affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including
without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Section 3.3. Relocation. (a) As of the date of this Agreement the Developer has entered
into purchase agreements to acquire all Parcels of the Development Property. The Authority has
no obligation to acquire the Development Property or any portion thereof, and has no obligation
to pay relocation benefits with regard to any Parcel.
(b) Without limiting the Developer’s obligations under Section 8.3 hereof, the
Developer will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and their governing
body members, employees, agents, and contractors from any and all claims for benefits or
payments arising out of the relocation or displacement of any person from the Development
Property as a result of the implementation of this Agreement.
Section 3.4. CAP Loan. (a) Generally. The Authority has determined that, in order to
make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible and to expedite such
development and stimulate the retention and creation of jobs pursuant to the Job Creation Act
(including construction jobs), it is necessary to provide the Developer with a CAP Loan for a
portion of the costs of acquisition of the Development Property (the “Acquisition Costs”),
subject to the terms of this Section.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 23
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 10
(b) Terms. To assist the Developer with payment of the Acquisition Costs incurred
by Developer, the Authority shall provide the Developer with the CAP Loan in the principal
amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the hard costs actually incurred in the interior and
exterior renovation and construction of the Minimum Improvements (the “Construction Costs”).
The terms of the CAP Loan will be substantially those set forth in the form of the CAP Loan
Resolution shown in Schedule B, and the CAP Loan will be subject to all terms of the CAP Loan
Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference. The source of funds for the CAP Loan
will be Tax Increments from the Prior TIF Districts pursuant to the Spending Plan, in accordance
with the Job Creation Act.
(c) Disbursement of CAP Loan. The Authority shall disburse the CAP Loan funds to
Developer as follows:
(i) Before disbursement of any CAP Loan proceeds, the Developer shall have
submitted and obtained Authority approval of financing in accordance with Section 7.1.
(ii) No more frequently than monthly, the Developer shall deliver to the
Authority one or more certificates signed by the Developer’s duly authorized
representative (the “Certificates”), containing written evidence satisfactory to the
Authority that Developer has incurred the Construction Costs for which reimbursement is
sought, which evidence must include copies of the paid invoices or other comparable
evidence for the Construction Costs, along with a certification that no part of such costs
has been included in any previous Certificate; provided that all Certificates must be
submitted no later than December 31, 2011.
(iii) Within 30 days of receipt of such Certificates, the Authority shall review
the Certificates and approve or reject the evidence of Construction Costs incurred;
provided that approval of Construction Costs shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(iv) Immediately upon approval of the Certificates, the Authority shall
disburse CAP Loan funds in the amount of 90% of the certified Construction Costs
identified in such Certificates. The Authority shall retain 10% of such costs (the
“Holdback”) in a separate CAP Loan fund until construction of the Minimum
Improvements is completed, as evidenced by issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
(v) Within 30 days after issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the
Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall submit a final certification of total
Construction Costs incurred for the construction of the Minimum Improvements. The
Authority shall release the Holdback to the extent that 33% of the actual Construction
Costs exceeds the amount of such costs disbursed through the CAP Loan. If CAP Loan
disbursements exceed 33% of the actual Construction Costs, the Developer shall repay
the amount of such excess to the Authority.
(c) Termination of right to CAP Loan. In accordance with the Job Creation Act,
construction of the Minimum Improvements must commence no later than July 1, 2011, and no
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 24
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 11
extensions of the commencement date will be considered. If the construction has not
commenced by such date, the Authority has no further obligations under this Section 3.3.
(d) Assignment of CAP Loan. TBD
(e) Qualifications. The Developer understands and acknowledges that the CAP Loan
must be fully repaid, along with accrued interest at the rate of 6.0%, if the Developer fails to
maintain the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition as required under Section 4.1
hereof, if a Transfer of the Development Property occurs at any time before the Termination
Date, or if the Authority exercises its right to terminate this Agreement as a remedy for any
Event of Default under Article IX hereof. Acquisition Costs exceeding the principal amount of
the CAP Loan are the sole responsibility of Developer.
Section 3.5. Interfund Loan. (a) The Authority has determined that the total assistance to be
provided to the Developer is the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the Construction Costs. This
amount represents the total to be invested by the Authority in assisting the Developer to acquire
the Development Property and construct the Minimum Improvements. In addition, the Authority
has determined that it will pay the actual costs of consultants and attorneys retained by the
Authority in connection with creation and administration of the TIF District and the negotiation
and preparation of this Agreement and other incidental agreements and documents related to the
development contemplated hereunder (the “Administrative Costs”), in an amount not to exceed
$80,000.
(b) The Authority will treat the investment and Administrative Costs
described in paragraph (a) as an interfund loan (the “Interfund Loan”) within the meaning of
Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act. The maximum principal amount of the Interfund
Loan shall be $500,000. The terms of the Interfund Loan are described in the resolution attached
as Schedule C (the “Interfund Loan Resolution”). The Authority will pledge Available Tax
Increment from the TIF District, as defined in the Interfund Loan Resolution, to payment of the
Interfund Loan. The Developer has no rights or interest in any Tax Increment.
Section 3.6. Business Subsidy. (a) Exemption. The Developer warrants and represents
that the Developer’s investment in the purchase of the Development Property equals at least
seventy percent (70%) of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Development
Property for the 2010 assessment year, calculated as follows:
Aggregate cost of acquisition of Developer Parcels....................$1,010,000
Assessor’s finalized market value of Development
Property (pay 2010).....................................................................$1,184,700
$1,010,000 (net acquisition cost) is 85% of $1,184,700 (assessor’s finalized fair market
value of the Development Property payable in 2010).
Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in
this Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 25
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 12
Subsidy Act. The Developer releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its
governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from
application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any
claim that the Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this
Agreement.
(b) Job Goals. Notwithstanding the exemption from the requirements of the Business
Subsidy Act described in Section 3.6(a), the parties agree and understand that this Agreement is
subject to the job creation and retention objectives of the Job Creation Act. Accordingly, through
the use of the CAP Loan and other financing, the Developer shall create and/or retain jobs
attributable to construction of the Minimum Improvements, and, upon completion of construction
of the Minimum Improvements, shall retain at least 14 full-time equivalent jobs in the City and
shall create such new full-time equivalent jobs as expansion of Developer’s manufacturing
facility permits.
(c) Reports. The Developer must submit to the City a written report regarding job and
wage goals and results by no later than February 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2012
and continuing until the date the goals stated in Section 3.6(b) are met; or (ii) if the goals are not
met, the date the CAP Loan is repaid in accordance with its terms. The City will provide
information to the Developer regarding the required forms. If the Developer fails to timely file
any report required under this Section, the City will mail the Developer a warning within one
week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the warning, the
Developer fails to provide a report, the Developer must pay to the City a penalty of $100 for
each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this
Section is $1,000.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 26
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 13
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Developer agrees that it will construct
or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property in
accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the
Developer retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and
maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements
to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in
good repair and condition.
Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum
Improvements, the Developer shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum
Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all
applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction
Plans in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of this
Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the
Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide
for construction of the Minimum Improvements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for
expenditures in excess of the funds available to the Developer for construction of the Minimum
Improvements; and (vi) no Event of Default has occurred. The Authority’s approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the
Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans)
comply to the Authority’s satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
The Developer hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever
resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the
Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority nor any employee or
official of the Authority shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect in the
Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including changes
requested by the Authority.
(b) If the Developer desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or
any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Developer shall submit the
proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term
“material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more. The
Authority’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably
withheld.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Developer shall
commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2011. Subject to Unavoidable
Delays, the Developer shall complete the construction of the Minimum Improvements by
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 27
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 14
December 1, 2011. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or
provided by the Developer on the Development Property shall be in conformity with the
Construction Plans as submitted by the Developer and approved by the Authority. For purposes
of this Agreement, construction shall be deemed to commence upon the commencement of
environmental remediation activities necessary to carry out the construction of the Minimum
Improvements.
The Developer agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor in
interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer, and such
successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the
development of the Development Property through the construction of the Minimum
Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and
completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of
this Agreement and until the Minimum Improvements have been fully leased, the Developer
shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the
Authority, but no more than monthly, as to the actual progress of the Developer with respect to
such construction and leasing.
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the
obligations of the Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for
beginning and completion thereof), the Authority Representative shall deliver to the Developer a
Certificate in substantially the form shown as Schedule D, in recordable form and executed by
the Authority.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority
Representative shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Developer, provide the
Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer
has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the
Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the
opinion of the Authority, for the Developer to take or perform in order for the Authority to issue
the Certificate of Completion. Issuance of the Certificate of Completion shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
(c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be
substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum
Improvements, and upon determination by the Authority Representative that all related site
improvements on the Development Property have been substantially completed in accordance
with approved Construction Plans.
Section 4.5. Records. The Authority and the City, through any authorized
representatives, shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable notice to inspect,
examine and copy all books and records of Developer relating to the Minimum Improvements.
Such records shall be kept and maintained by Developer through the Termination Date.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 28
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 15
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Developer will provide and maintain at all times during
the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance
Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the
Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the
Note, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form
of policy. The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in
form and content satisfactory to the Authority;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations,
contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual
liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits
against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each
occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy
may be used). The Authority shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that
the Developer may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for
workers’ compensation.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Developer shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense,
and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of
premiums on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements
under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal
injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons
and/or property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of
$1,000,000, and shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance
respecting all employees of the Developer, in such amount as is customarily carried by
like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure;
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 29
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 16
provided that the Developer may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its
liability for workers’ compensation.
(c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Developer that are authorized
under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Developer
will deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or
certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect.
Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a
provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage
provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Developer and
the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective.
In lieu of separate policies, the Developer may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella
policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the
Developer shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers
as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) The Developer agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage
exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion
thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Developer will forthwith repair,
reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved
condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent
necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Developer will apply the
net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Developer to the payment
or reimbursement of the costs thereof.
The Developer shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum
Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Developer for
such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion
of such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Developer.
(e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in
this Section, the Developer shall have the option of paying to the Authority an amount that, in
the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the
outstanding principal and accrued interest on the CAP Loan.
(f) The Developer and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set
forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement.
Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights
of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all
respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed
pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 30
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 17
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Developer acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development through
reimbursement of Acquisition Costs. The Developer further understands that the Tax Increments
pledged to repayment of the Interfund Loan described in Section 3.6 hereof are derived from real
estate taxes on the Development Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To
that end, the Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation
pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to
pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Development Property and the
Minimum Improvements on the basis of Minimum Market Value as defined in Section 6.3. The
Developer acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of the
Authority to sue the Developer or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes
and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the county
auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses and
reasonable attorney fees.
Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Developer agrees that prior to the date of
decertification of the TIF District, it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in
respect of the Development Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Development
Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property
pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement, except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Developer
also agrees that it will not, prior to the date of decertification of the TIF District, seek exemption
from property tax for the Development Property or any portion thereof or transfer or permit the
transfer of the Development Property to any entity that is exempt from real property taxes and
state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the City in accordance with
platting of the Development Property), or apply for a deferral of property tax on the
Development Property pursuant to any law.
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement. (a) Upon execution of this Agreement, the
Developer shall, with the Authority, execute an Assessment Agreement pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8, specifying an assessor’s minimum Market Value for the
Development Property and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon (the Minimum Market
Value”). The amount of the Minimum Market Value shall be $2,425,000 as of January 2, 2012,
and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction by such dates.
(b) The Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Schedule F. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to
assign a market value to the property in excess of such assessor’s Minimum Market Value, for
shall any provision in the Assessment Agreement limit the Developer’s discretion or right to
contest an assignment of a market value in excess of the Minimum Market Value. The
Assessment Agreement shall remain in force for the period specified in the Assessment
Agreement.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 31
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 18
ARTICLE VII
Other Financing
Section 7.1. Generally. Before delivery of the CAP Loan, the Developer shall submit to
the Authority or provide access thereto for review by Authority staff, consultants and agents,
evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that Developer has available funds, or
commitments to obtain funds, whether in the nature of mortgage financing, equity, grants, loans,
or other sources sufficient for paying the cost of developing the Minimum Improvements,
provided that any lender or grantor commitments shall be subject only to such conditions as are
normal and customary in the commercial lending industry.
Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage. In the event that any
portion of the Developer’s funds is provided through mortgage financing, and there occurs a
default under any Mortgage reviewed by the Authority pursuant to Article VII of this
Agreement, the Developer shall cause the Authority to receive copies of any notice of default
received by the Developer from the holder of such Mortgage. Thereafter, the Authority shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of the Developer within
such cure periods as are available to the Developer under the Mortgage documents.
Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination. The Authority agrees to subordinate its rights
under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent
financing, in accordance with the terms of a subordination agreement in a form reasonably
acceptable to the Authority.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 32
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 19
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Developer represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Development Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the
Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Development Property
and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Developer’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Developer represents and agrees that during the term of this Agreement:
(a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining
financing necessary to enable the Developer or any successor in interest to the Development
Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the
development contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this
Agreement, the Developer has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be
made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power,
or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Development
Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the
same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Developer (collectively, a
“Transfer”), without the prior written approval of the Authority (whose approval will not be
unreasonably withheld, subject to the standards described in paragraph (b) of this Section) unless
the Developer remains liable and bound by this Development Agreement in which event the
Authority’s approval is not required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this
Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include
(i) acquisition of a controlling interest in Developer by another entity or merger of Developer
with another entity; or (ii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate.
(b) In the event the Developer, upon Transfer of the Development Property or any
portion thereof either before or after issuance of the final Certificate of Completion, seeks to be
released from its obligations under this Development Agreement as to the portions of the
Development Property that is transferred, the Authority shall be entitled to require, except as
otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that:
(i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to
fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Developer as to the portion of
the Development Property to be transferred.
(ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of
the Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Developer under this
Agreement as to the portion of the Development Property to be transferred and agreed to
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 33
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 20
be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Developer is subject as to
such portion; provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other
successor in interest whatsoever to, the Development Property, or any part thereof, shall
not, for whatever reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not
(unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed
to in writing by the Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls
with respect to the Development Property, the Minimum Improvements or any part
thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the
parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in
equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise
in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the
Development Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated
or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally, or practically,
to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or remedies on controls
provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the Development Property
that the Authority would have had, had there been no such transfer or change. In the
absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the contrary, no such transfer
or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Developer, or any
other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the
Development Property, from any of its obligations with respect thereto.
(iii) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting
the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Development Property governed by
this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority.
(iv) At the written request of Developer, the Authority shall execute and
deliver to Developer and the proposed transferee an estoppel certificate containing
commercially customary and reasonable certifications.
In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Developer shall be released from its
obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Development Property that is
transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful
misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties
as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their
obligations under this Agreement, the Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that the
Authority, the City, and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees
thereof (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death
of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Development Property or
the Minimum Improvements.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified
Parties of their obligations under this Agreement (including without limitation any failure by the
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 34
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 21
Authority to perform any procedure required under law in connection with establishment of the
TIF District), the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and
forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action,
or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising
from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction,
installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Development Property.
(c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of
the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall
not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Developer or its officers,
agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the Development Property
or Minimum Improvements.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority
contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and
obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or
employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 35
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 22
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default”
under this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this
Agreement, any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides
thirty (30) days written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not
been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within thirty (30)
days, the defaulting party does not, within such thirty-day period, provide assurances reasonably
satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured
as soon as reasonably possible:
(a) Failure by the Developer or Authority to observe or perform any covenant,
condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this
Agreement, unless such failure to perform is the result of an Unavoidable Delay.
(b) If, before issuance of the certificate of completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Developer shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United
States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law, which action is not
dismissed within sixty (60) days after filing; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due;
or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in
Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may:
(a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon a default by the Developer under this Agreement, the Authority may
accelerate the CAP Loan and terminate this Agreement.
(c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which
may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to
enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 36
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 23
Agreement, provided that nothing contained herein shall give the Authority the right to seek
specific performance by Developer of the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any
party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this
Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to
exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or
shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from
time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any
remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be
required in this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the
other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be
deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Section 9.5. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the non-
defaulting party employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of payments due or
to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or
agreement on the part of the defaulting party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall,
within ten (10) days of written demand by the non-defaulting party, pay to the non-defaulting
party the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the non-
defaulting party.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 37
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 24
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The
Authority and the Developer, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that
no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or
indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any
decision relating to the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the interests of any
corporation, partnership, or association in which he, directly or indirectly, is interested. No
member, official, or employee of the City or Authority shall be personally liable to the
Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or
for any amount that may become due to the Developer or successor or on any obligations under
the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Developer, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements
provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local equal
employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Developer agrees that until the Termination Date,
the Developer, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Development Property to the
operation of the Minimum Improvements as defined in Section 1.1 hereof, and shall not
discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental
or in the use or occupancy of the Development Property or any improvements erected or to be
erected thereon, or any part thereof. Developer agrees that no portion of the Development
Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, a
tattoo business, or a gun business.
Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this
Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in
the Development Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the
provisions and covenants of this Agreement.
Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or
to such other addresses as either party may notify the other):
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 38
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 25
To Developer: M & L Properties, LLC
Attn: Michael Kelner
7300 West Lake Street
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
With a copy to: Gray Plant Mooty
Attn: Thomas L. Johnson
500 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
To Authority: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Attn: Executive Director
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518
With a copy to: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any
amendments thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Developer shall pay all costs for
recording. The Developer’s obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the
land for the term of this Agreement, enforceable by the Authority against the Developer, its
successor and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part
thereof or any interest therein.
Section 10.9 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement
approved by the Authority and the Developer.
Section 10.10. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required
by the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative, except
that final approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the Authority’s board of
commissioners.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 39
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 26
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Developer have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2010 by ______________________ and ___________________ the President and Executive
Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 40
378184v2 MNI SA285-95 27
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________,
2010, by _________________________, the _________________ of M & L Properties, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 41
A-1
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
SCHEDULE A
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 42
320882v1 MNI MN190-131 B-1
SCHEDULE B
CAP LOAN RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LOAN TO M & L PROPERTIES,
LLC, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS,
COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR SUCH LOAN.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Authorization; Award of Loan.
1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have heretofore
approved the establishment of the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City,
Edgewood, Wolfe Lake, Aquila Commons, and Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District (the
“TIF Districts”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), have adopted a spending plan
(the “Spending Plan”) pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job
Creation Act”) for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project using tax
increments from the TIF Districts to stimulate job creation, and have established a Construction
Assistance Program (“CAP”) to provide further guidelines for use of the tax increments from the
TIF Districts under the Spending Plan.
Pursuant to the Job Creation Act, the Authority is authorized to provide loans, interest rate
subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or
substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities to create or retain jobs. Such
assistance is payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF Districts and
authorized for such use under the Spending Plan. The Authority hereby finds and determines that
it is in the best interests of the Authority to provide a CAP Loan to M & L Properties, LLC (the
“Developer”) for the purpose of financing certain land acquisition costs (the “Acquisition
Costs”) in connection with the purchase, renovation and expansion of a manufacturing facility by
the Developer (the “Minimum Improvements”).
1.02. Approval of Agreement; Terms of the Loan. (a) The Authority hereby authorizes
the President and Executive Director to execute the Contract for Private Development between
the Authority and the Developer (the “Agreement”) in substantially the form presented to the
Board, 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 Agreement by
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 43
B-2
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
those officials shall be conclusive evidence of their approval. All capitalized terms in this
resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise.
(b) Pursuant to the Agreement, the Authority will loan to the Developer the CAP Loan in
the principal amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the actual costs of construction and
renovation of the Minimum Improvements, evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) and
secured by a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) to be executed and delivered to the Authority by the
Developer in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Proceeds of the
CAP Loan shall be disbursed in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Agreement. The Note shall
bear interest at the rate of 6.0% per annum, subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof.
Section 2. Repayment of Loan. The entire unpaid balance of principal and interest
shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after written
notification by the Authority to the Developer of the occurrence of an Event of Default as
defined in the Agreement or Mortgage; or (ii) ten (10) days after the Developer makes or allows
to be made any total or partial transfer, sale, assignment, conveyance, lease, or transfer in any
other mode, of the Development Property, if such transfer occurs within five (5) years after the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as provided in Section
4.4 of the Agreement. If the Developer does not sell the Development Property within five (5)
years of the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, no
payments of interest shall be payable on this Note and the principal balance shall be forgiven.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority __________, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 44
B-3
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
Exhibit A to CAP Loan Resolution
PROMISSORY NOTE
$_______________ ____________, 20__
Interest rate: 6.0%
M & L Properties, LLC (“Maker”), for value received, hereby promises to pay to the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws
of Minnesota, or its assigns (collectively referred to herein as “Holder”), at its designated
principal office or such other place as the Holder may designate in writing, the principal sum of
____________________ and no/100ths Dollars ($_______.00), with interest thereon at the rate of
six percent (6.0%) per annum, in any coin or currency that at the time or times of payment is
legal tender for the payment of private debts in the United States of America. The principal of
and interest on this Note is payable as follows:
1. Simple interest shall accrue from the date of delivery, calculated on the basis of a
360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months. The entire unpaid balance of principal and
interest shall be due and payable upon the earlier of the following: (i) thirty (30) days after
written notification by Holder to Maker of the occurrence of an Event of Default as defined in
the Contract for Private Development between the Maker and the Holder, dated as of
___________, 2010 (the “Agreement”) or the Mortgage given by the Maker to the Holder of
even date herewith (the “Mortgage”) and demand of payment according to Section 15 of the
Mortgage; or (ii) ten (10) days after the Maker makes or allows to be made any total or partial
transfer, sale, assignment, conveyance, lease, or transfer in any other mode, of the Development
Property (as defined in the Agreement and the Mortgage), if such transfer occurs within five (5)
years after the date of issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements as
defined in the Agreement. If the Maker does not sell the Development Property within five (5)
years of the date of the Certificate of Completion and no Event of Default occurs and continues
by such date, no interest payments shall be payable on this Note and the entire principal balance
shall be forgiven.
2. This Note is secured by the Mortgage on the Development Property, given by the
Maker to the Holder on the date hereof. All of the agreements, conditions, covenants,
provisions, and stipulations contained in the Agreement and the Mortgage are hereby made a part
of this Note to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if they were fully set forth
herein. It is agreed that time is of the essence of this Note. If an Event of Default occurs under
the Agreement, the Mortgage, or any other instrument securing this Note, then the Holder of this
Note may at its right and option, without notice, declare immediately due and payable the
principal balance of this Note and interest accrued thereon, together with reasonable attorneys
fees and expenses incurred by the Holder of this Note in collecting or enforcing payment hereof,
whether by lawsuit or otherwise, and all other sums due hereunder or any instrument securing
this Note. The Maker of this Note agrees that the Holder of this Note may, without notice to and
without affecting the liability of the Maker, accept additional or substitute security for this Note,
or release any security or any party liable for this Note or extend or renew this Note.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 45
B-4
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
3. The remedies of the Holder of this Note as provided herein, and in the Agreement,
the Mortgage, or any other instrument securing this Note, shall be cumulative and concurrent and
may be pursued singly, successively, or together, and, at the sole discretion of the Holder of this
Note, may be exercised as often as occasion therefor shall occur; and the failure to exercise any
such right or remedy shall in no event be construed as a waiver or release thereof.
The Holder of this Note shall not be deemed, by any act of omission or commission, to
have waived any of its rights or remedies hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and signed
by the Holder and then only to the extent specifically set forth in the writing. A waiver with
reference to one event shall not be construed as continuing or as a bar to or waiver of any right or
remedy as to a subsequent event. This Note may not be amended, modified, or changed except
only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any such
amendment, modifications, or change is sought.
4. If any term of this Note, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances
shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Note, or the application of
such term to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable
shall not be affected thereby, and each term of this Note shall be valid and enforceable to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
5. If any Event of Default occurs, and if Holder engages legal counsel or others in
connection with advice to Holder or Holder’s rights and remedies under the Agreement or this
Note, Maker shall pay all reasonable expenses incurred by Holder for such persons, irrespective
of whether any suite or other proceeding has been or is filed or commenced. Any such expenses,
costs and charges shall constitute additional principal, payable upon demand, and subject to this
Note and the Mortgage.
6. It is intended that this Note is made with reference to and shall be construed as a
Minnesota contract and is governed by the laws thereof. Any disputes, controversies, or claims
arising out of this Note or the Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of
Minnesota, and all parties to this Note and the Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction
of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise.
7. The performance or observance of any promise or condition set forth in this Note
may be waived, amended, or modified only by a writing signed by the Maker and the Holder.
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.
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 Note do exist,
have happened, and have been performed in regular and due form as required by law.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 46
320881v1 MNI MN190-131 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Note to be duly executed as of the
________ day of ______________, 20__.
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
By: ______________________________________
Its _________________________________
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROMISSORY NOTE]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 47
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
6
Exhibit B to CAP Loan Resolution
FORM OF MORTGAGE
Mortgage Registration Tax: $____________
The maximum principal indebtedness secured by this mortgage is $___________.00.
MORTGAGE
THIS MORTGAGE is given on _________, 20__. Borrower is M & L Properties, LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company (“Borrower”). This Mortgage is given to the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”).
Borrower owes the Authority the principal sum of $_________.00. This debt is evidenced by a
promissory note of even date herewith (the “Note”). This Mortgage secures to Authority: (a) the
repayment of the debt evidenced by the Note, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of
the Note; (b) the payment of all other sums, advanced to protect the security of this Mortgage;
(c) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Mortgage and the Note;
and (d) is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Contract for Private Development
between the Authority and the Borrower dated as of _________, 2010 (the “Agreement”). For
this purpose, Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to the Authority, with power of
sale, the property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota and fully described in the attached
Exhibit A, together with all the improvements now or hereafter erected on the property, and all
easements, appurtenances, and fixtures now or hereafter a part of the property. All replacements
and additions shall also be covered by this Mortgage. All of the foregoing is referred to in this
Mortgage as the “Property.”
BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seized of the estate hereby
conveyed and has the right to mortgage, grant, and convey the Property and that the Property is
unencumbered, except for encumbrances of record and as set forth in paragraph 17. Borrower
warrants and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands,
subject to any encumbrances of record.
Borrower and the Authority agree as follows:
1. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL; LATE CHARGES. Borrower shall promptly pay
when due the principal on the debt evidenced by the Note and any late charges due under the
Note.
2. CHARGES; LIENS. Borrower shall pay all taxes, assessments, charges, fines,
and impositions attributable to the Property which may attain priority over this Mortgage, and
leasehold payments or ground rents, if any. Borrower shall pay these obligations on time
directly to the person owed payment.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 48
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
7
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 17, Borrower shall promptly discharge any lien
which has priority over this Mortgage unless Borrower: (a) agrees in writing to the payment of
the obligation secured by the lien in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Authority; (b)
contests in good faith the lien by, or defends against enforcement of the lien in, legal proceedings
which in the Authority’s opinion operate to prevent the enforcement of the lien; or (c) secures
from the holder of the lien an agreement satisfactory to the Authority subordinating the lien to
this Mortgage. If the Authority determines that any part of the Property is subject to a lien which
may attain priority over this Mortgage, the Authority may give Borrower a notice identifying the
lien. Borrower shall satisfy the lien or take one or more of the actions set forth above within
thirty (30) days of the giving of notice.
3. HAZARD OR PROPERTY INSURANCE. Borrower shall keep the
improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Property insured against loss by fire and
any other hazards for which the Authority requires insurance. This insurance shall be maintained
in the amounts and for the periods that the Authority reasonably requires. The insurance carrier
providing the insurance shall be chosen by Borrower subject to the Authority’s approval, which
shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If Borrower fails to maintain coverage described
above, the Authority may, at the Authority’s option, obtain coverage to protect the Authority’s
rights in the Property in accordance with paragraph 5.
All insurance policies and renewals shall be reasonably acceptable to the Authority and
shall include a standard mortgage clause. If the Authority requires, Borrower shall promptly
give to the Authority all receipts of paid premiums and renewal notices. In the event of loss,
Borrower shall give prompt notice to the insurance carrier and the Authority. The Authority may
make proof of loss if not made promptly by Borrower.
If under paragraph 15 the Property is acquired by the Authority, Borrower’s right to any
insurance policies and proceeds resulting from damage to the Property prior to the acquisition
shall pass to the Authority to the extent of the sums secured by this Mortgage immediately prior
to the acquisition.
4. PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY. Borrower shall not destroy or damage the
Property or commit waste on the Property. Borrower shall be in default if any forfeiture action
or proceeding, whether civil or criminal, is begun that in the Authority’s good faith judgment
could result in forfeiture of the Property or otherwise materially impair the lien created by this
Mortgage or the Authority’s security interest. Borrower may cure such a default and reinstate, as
provided in paragraph 13, by causing the action or proceeding to be dismissed with a ruling that,
in the Authority’s good faith determination, precludes forfeiture of Borrower’s interest in the
Property or other material impairment of the lien created by this Mortgage or the Authority’s
security interest. Borrower shall also be in default if Borrower gave materially false or
inaccurate information or statements to the Authority in connection with the loan evidenced by
the Note.
5. PROTECTION OF AUTHORITY’S RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. If Borrower
fails to perform the covenants and agreements contained in this Mortgage, or there is a legal
proceeding that may significantly affect the Authority’s rights in the Property (such as a
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 49
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
8
proceeding in bankruptcy, condemnation or forfeiture), the Authority may do and pay for
whatever is necessary to protect the value of the Property and the Authority’s rights in the
Property. The Authority’s actions may include paying any sums secured by a lien which has
priority over this Mortgage, appearing in court, paying reasonable attorneys fees and entering on
the Property to make repairs. Although the Authority may take action under this paragraph 5, the
Authority is not required to do so.
Any amounts disbursed by the Authority under this paragraph 5 shall become additional
debt of Borrower secured by this Mortgage. Unless Borrower and the Authority agree to other
terms of payment, these amounts shall bear interest from the date of disbursement at a rate equal
to the interest rate on the Note and shall be payable, with interest, upon notice from the Authority
to Borrower requesting payment.
6. INSPECTION. The Authority or its agent may make reasonable entries upon and
inspections of the Property.
7. CONDEMNATION. The proceeds of any award or claim for damages, direct or
consequential, in connection with any condemnation or other taking of any part of the Property,
or for conveyance in lieu of condemnation, are hereby assigned and shall be paid to the
Authority.
In the event of a total taking of the Property, the proceeds shall be applied to the sums
secured by this Mortgage, whether or not then due, with any excess paid to Borrower. In the
event of a partial taking of the Property in which the fair market value of the Property
immediately before the taking is equal to or greater than the amount of the sums secured by this
Mortgage immediately before the taking, unless Borrower and the Authority otherwise agree in
writing, if any, the sums secured by this Mortgage shall be reduced by the amount of the
proceeds multiplied by the following fraction: (a) the total amount of the sums secured
immediately before the taking, divided by (b) the fair market value of the Property immediately
before the taking. Any balance shall be paid to Borrower. In the event of a partial taking of the
Property in which the fair market value of the Property immediately before the taking is less than
the amount of the sums secured immediately before the taking, unless Borrower and the
Authority otherwise agree in writing or unless applicable law otherwise provides, the proceeds
shall be applied to the sums secured by this Mortgage whether or not the sums are then due.
The Authority acknowledges this Mortgage is subordinate to the liens specifically
referred to in Section 17 hereof.
8. FORBEARANCE BY AUTHORITY NOT A WAIVER. Any forbearance by the
Authority in exercising any right or remedy shall not be a waiver of or preclude the exercise of
any right or remedy.
9. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS BOUND. The covenants and agreements of this
Mortgage shall bind and benefit the successors and assigns of the Authority and Borrower.
10. LOAN CHARGES. If the loan secured by this Mortgage is or becomes subject to
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 50
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
9
a law which sets maximum loan charges, and that law is finally interpreted so that the interest or
other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with the loan exceed the permitted
limits, then: (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the
charge to the permitted limit; and (b) any sums already collected from Borrower which exceeded
permitted limits will be refunded to Borrower. The Authority may choose to make this refund by
reducing the principal owed under the Note or by making a direct payment to Borrower. If a
refund reduces principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial prepayment under the Note.
11. NOTICES. Any notice to Borrower provided for in this Mortgage shall be given
by delivering it personally or by mailing it by first class United States mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested. The notice shall be directed to Borrower at 7300 West Lake Street, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, or any other address Borrower designates by notice to the
Authority. Any notice to the Authority shall be given or mailed to City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka
Avenue, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, Attention: Executive Director, or any other address
the Authority designates by notice to Borrower. Any notice provided for in this Mortgage shall
be deemed to have been given to Borrower or the Authority when given as provided in this
paragraph.
12. GOVERNING LAW; SEVERABILITY. This Mortgage shall be governed by the
law of the state of Minnesota. In the event that any provision or clause of this Mortgage, the
Agreement, or the Note conflicts with applicable law, such conflict shall not affect other
provisions of this Mortgage, the Agreement, or the Note which can be given effect without the
conflicting provision. To this end, the provisions of this Mortgage, the Agreement, and the Note
are declared to be severable.
13. BORROWER’S RIGHT TO REINSTATE. If Borrower meets certain conditions,
Borrower shall have the right to have enforcement of this Mortgage discontinued at any time
prior to the earlier of: (a) five (5 )days before sale of the Property pursuant to any power of sale
contained in this Mortgage; or (b) entry of a judgment enforcing this Mortgage. Those
conditions are that Borrower: (a) pays the Authority all sums which then would be due under this
Mortgage, the Agreement and the Note as if no acceleration had occurred; (b) cures any default
of any other covenants or agreements; (c) pays all expenses incurred in enforcing this Mortgage,
including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees; and (d) takes such action as the Authority
may reasonably require to assure that the lien of this Mortgage, the Authority’s rights in the
Property and Borrower’s obligation to pay the sums secured by this Mortgage shall continue
unchanged. Upon reinstatement by Borrower, this Mortgage and the obligations secured hereby
shall remain fully effective as if no acceleration had occurred.
14. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Borrower shall not cause or permit the presence,
use, disposal, storage, or release of any hazardous substances on or in the Property, except those
solvents, oils, cleaning materials, and other substances as are used in the ordinary course of
Borrower’s business. Borrower shall not do, and will use its best efforts not to allow anyone else
to do, anything affecting the Property that is in violation of any environmental law.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 51
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
10
Borrower shall promptly give the Authority written notice of any investigation, claim,
demand, lawsuit or other action by any governmental or regulatory agency or private party
involving the Property and any hazardous substance or environmental law of which Borrower
has actual knowledge. If Borrower learns, or is notified by any governmental or regulatory
EDA, that any removal or other remediation of any hazardous substance affecting the Property is
necessary, Borrower shall promptly take all necessary remedial actions in accordance with that
environmental law.
As used in this paragraph 14, “hazardous substances” are those substances defined as
toxic or hazardous substances by environmental law and the following substances: gasoline,
kerosene, other flammable or toxic petroleum products, volatile solvents, materials containing
asbestos or formaldehyde, and radioactive materials. As used in this paragraph 14,
“environmental law” means federal or state laws that relate to environmental protection.
15. ACCELERATION; REMEDIES. The Authority shall give notice to Borrower
prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Mortgage
(“Event of Default”). The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the
default; (c) a date, not less than thirty (30) days from the date the notice is given to Borrower by
which the default must be cured, provided, however, if Borrower is diligently pursuing a cure,
Borrower shall have such additional time as is reasonably necessary to complete the cure; and
(d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in
acceleration of the sums secured by this Mortgage and sale of the Property. The notice shall
further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and sale. If the default is not
cured on or before the date specified in the notice, the Authority at its option may require
immediate payment in full of any sums secured by this Mortgage without further demand and
may invoke the power of sale and any other remedies permitted by law. The Authority shall be
entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this paragraph 15,
including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys fees.
If the Authority invokes the power of sale, the Authority shall cause a copy of a notice of
sale to be served upon any person in possession of the Property. The Authority shall publish a
notice of sale, and the Property shall be sold at public auction in the manner prescribed by law.
The Authority or its designee may purchase the Property at any sale. The proceeds of the sale
shall be applied in the following order: (a) to all expenses of the sale, including, but not limited
to, reasonable attorneys fees; (b) to all sums secured by this Mortgage; and (c) any excess to the
person or persons legally entitled to it.
16. RELEASE OF MORTGAGE. Upon payment or forgiveness of all sums secured
by this Mortgage, the Authority shall discharge this Mortgage without charge to Borrower.
Authority shall pay any recordation costs.
17. PRIOR LIENS. The Authority acknowledges this Mortgage is subordinate to the
following previously recorded lien[s] on the Property:
(a) [insert if necessary]
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 52
320881v1 MNI MN190-131
11
(b)
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 53
320881v1 MNI MN190-131 S-1
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
By: _____________________________________
Its: ______________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
20__ by ____________________, the _______________ of M & L Properties, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (MNI)
200 South Sixth Street
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 54
B-13
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
EXHIBIT A
TO MORTGAGE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 55
C-1
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
SCHEDULE C
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ____
AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE HARDCOAT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board Of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The Authority has established the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
(the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project") pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the “TIF Act”) and Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (the “HRA Act”), as amended.
1.02. The Authority may incur certain costs related to the TIF District, which costs may
be financed on a temporary basis from available Authority or City funds.
1.03. Under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the Authority is authorized
to advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally made in
order to finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF Act.
1.04. The Authority has previously established a Spending Plan (the “Spending Plan”)
pursuant to Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 32 (the “Job Creation Act”), pursuant to which the
Authority may provide funds from certain designated preexisting tax increment financing
districts including the Victoria Ponds, Park Center Housing, CSM, Mill City, and Elmwood tax
increment financing districts (the “Prior TIF Districts”) to assist private developers and increase
the creation of jobs, and has approved its Construction Assistance Program (“CAP”) as a
framework for such private assistance.
1.05. The Authority has entered into a Contract for Private Development dated as of
December 20, 2010 (the “Agreement”) with M & L Properties, LLC (the “Developer”), under
which the Authority will (among other things) provide a forgivable CAP loan to the Developer to
assist with a portion of the costs of acquisition of the Development Property, in the principal
amount of the lesser of $420,000 or 33% of the Construction Costs incurred (as such terms are
defined in the Agreement).
1.06. By structuring the loan to the Developer as a forgivable loan, the Authority may
forgo repayment of the loan. Such loan forgiveness represents an advance of Authority funds in
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 56
C-2
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
the maximum amount of $420,000.
1.07. The Authority has also determined that it will advance the actual costs of
consultants and attorneys retained by the Authority in connection with creation and
administration of the TIF District and the negotiation and preparation of the Agreement and other
incidental agreements and documents related to the development contemplated hereunder (the
“Administrative Costs”), in an amount not to exceed $80,000.
1.07. The Authority intends to designate such advances as an interfund loan in
accordance with the terms of this resolution and the TIF Act.
Section 2. Repayment of Interfund Loan.
2.01. The Authority hereby authorizes the advance of up to $500,000 from the
Spending Plan funds from the Prior TIF Districts to pay the CAP Loan advances and
Administrative Costs as described in the Agreement, and will reimburse itself for such advances
and Administrative Costs together with interest at the rate of 4.0% per annum (the “Interfund
Loan”). Interest shall accrue on the principal amount of each advance from the date of such
advance. The interest rate is no more than the greatest of the rate specified under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 270.75 and Section 549.09, both in effect for calendar year 2010. The interest
rate will not fluctuate.
2.02. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi-
annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a “Payment Date”), commencing on the first
Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any
other dates determined by the City Manager, through the date of last receipt of tax increment
from the TIF District.
2.03. Payments on the Interfund Loan will be made solely from Available Tax
Increment, defined as 100% of the tax increment from the TIF District received by the Authority
from Hennepin County in the six-month period before any Payment Date. Payments shall be
applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Payments on this Interfund Loan
may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or
in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future
interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment.
2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this resolution is pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty.
2.05. This resolution is evidence of an internal borrowing by the Authority in
accordance with Section 469.178, subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, and is a limited obligation
payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this
resolution. The Interfund Loan shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State
of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority
and the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be
obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 57
C-3
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
except out of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any
principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid
after the final Payment Date.
2.06. The Authority may at any time make a determination to forgive the outstanding
principal amount and accrued interest on the Interfund Loan to the extent permissible under law.
2.07. The Authority may from time to time amend the terms of this Resolution to the
extent permitted by law, including without limitation amendment to the payment schedule.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon execution in full of the
Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority __________, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 58
D-1
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
SCHEDULE D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) and
M & L Properties, LLC (the “Developer”) entered into a certain Contract for Private
Development dated _________, 2010 (the “Agreement”), filed of record as Document
No. _____________ on ___________, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in
Articles III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this
certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Developer have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the
Agreement have been performed by the Developer, and this Certificate is intended to be a
conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of
Articles III and IV of the Agreement related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but
any other covenants in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Authority Representative
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 59
D-2
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
20__ by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 60
E-1
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
SCHEDULE E
SITE PLAN
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 61
F-1
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
SCHEDULE F
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 62
F-2
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ____ day of _________________, 20__ by
and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body, corporate and
politic (the “Authority”) and M & L Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and Developer have entered into a
Contract for Private Development dated December __, 2010 (the “Development Agreement”),
pursuant to which the Authority is to facilitate development of certain property in the Authority
of St. Louis Park hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit A
hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Agreement the Developer is obligated to
construct certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) upon the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Developer desire to establish a minimum market value for
the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes
for the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the Minimum Improvements constructed
thereon, shall be $2,425,000 as of January 2, 2012, notwithstanding the progress of construction
by such date, and as of each January 2 thereafter until termination of this Agreement under
Section 2 hereof.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and
effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the date of receipt by the Authority of the final
payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments from the Hardcoat Village Tax Increment
Financing District.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Developer
shall pay all costs of recording.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 63
F-3
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Development Agreement between the Authority
and the Developer.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors
and assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all
actions required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery
of this Agreement.
7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge
and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements,
amendments and modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be
required for correcting any inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or
the Minimum Improvements or for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement,
including, without limitation, any further instruments required to delete from the description of
the Property such part or parts as may be included within a separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 64
F-4
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 20__
by ____________________ and ___________________________, the President and Executive
Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 65
F-5
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
M & L PROPERTIES, LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF__________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
_____________, 20__ by ____________________, the ____________________ of M & L
Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 66
F-6
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
CERTIFICATION BY CITY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to
be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for
the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the
land and improvements are reasonable.
City Assessor for the City of St. Louis Park
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________,
2010 by _____________________, the City Assessor of the City of St. Louis Park.
Notary Public
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 67
F-7
378184v2 MNI SA285-95
EXHIBIT A of ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Property
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7b)
Subject: Development Contract with M & L Properties (Hardcoat Inc.)Page 68
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting
TITLE:
2011 Final HRA Levy Certification.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2011 Final HRA Levy
and Budget for fiscal year 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA desire to levy the maximum percentage allowable by law of 0.0185% of taxable
market value collectible in 2011 for purposes of funding infrastructure improvements in
redeveloping areas of the City?
BACKGROUND:
On September 7, 2010, the EDA adopted a Preliminary HRA Levy of $1,028,888. The purpose
of this levy is to assist in funding future improvements to infrastructure in redeveloping areas.
Some possible intended uses of these dollars are the City’s share of the grade separated crossing
at Highway 7 and Louisiana, and the possible Highway 100 reconstruction. This levy also pays
expenses for lobbying for State and Federal transportation funding. Although there is only
$20,000 in capital expenditures budgeted for 2011, there is currently $3,410,542 in estimated
capital expenditures for 2012. The City Council and EDA first adopted the HRA Levy for 2002.
The maximum allowable HRA levy is based on a percentage of the previous year’s taxable
market value in the City. For the 2011 levy, the percentage is 0.0185%. Based on the taxable
market value of the City of $5,561,557,200, staff has calculated the maximum Final HRA Levy
for 2011 to be $1,028,888. This is a $14,453 decrease, or approximately 1.39% from 2010 to
2011 in the potential maximum allowable HRA levy. The decrease is a result of a lower taxable
market value in the City for 2011. As indicated in the resolution, the EDA is asked to authorize
the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is
required before certification.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly related to
transportation needs, it is recommended that the EDA adopt the resolution authorizing the
proposed HRA levy.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This levy supports St. Louis Park being a connected and engaged community through meeting
the needs of current and future infrastructure needs.
Attachments: Resolution
2011 HRA Levy Proposed Budget
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Final HRA Levy Certification
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2011
AND APPROVAL OF THE EDA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon this budget, the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority:
1. The special benefit tax levy budget of $1,028,888 for the operations of the Authority
in fiscal year 2011, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all
respects approved, by the Authority for certification of the tax levy under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 275.07.
2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file a budget with the City
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6.
3. The special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision
6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of taxable market
value in City of St. Louis Park,
4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes in 2011.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Final HRA Levy Certification
Passed and duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority this 20th day of December, 2010.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 7c) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Final HRA Levy Certification
HRA Levy
2011 Budget
December 20, 2010
2009 2010 2011
Actual Budget Proposed Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy $989,407 $1,043,341 $1,028,888
Market Value Homestead Credit 30,856 0 27,000
Interest Income 99,690 100,000 100,000
Total Revenue $1,119,953 $1,143,341 $1,155,888
Expenditures:
Infrastructure Projects $0 $1,647,771 $20,000
Legislative Lobbying Services 52,653 48,000 36,000
Travel & Meeting Expenses 0 4,500 0
Total Expenditures $52,653 $1,700,271 $56,000
Beginning Fund Balance $3,970,810 $5,038,110 $4,481,180
Net Change in Fund Balance $1,067,300 ($556,930) $1,099,888
Ending Fund Balance $5,038,110 $4,481,180 $5,581,068
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7d
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 Bank Signatories.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution authorizing bank signatories for the EDA Checking Account.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the Economic Development Authority concur with the list of bank signatories for the
Citizens Bank EDA Checking Account?
BACKGROUND:
The EDA has a checking account at Citizens Independent Bank in St. Louis Park. This account
is used for all EDA vendor payments.
Staff is in the process of updating bank signature cards and banking resolutions for all checking
accounts. Based on new and more strict banking requirements, approval by resolution and
copies of minutes are needed. The following signatories are recommended for the EDA account:
EDA Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* Executive Director
Phil Finkelstein* EDA President
Brian Swanson** Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
* Check signer as required by EDA Bylaws
**Secondary authority
Staff will request authorization from the Economic Development Authority at any point in time
when a signer needs to be added or removed from this account via resolution to ensure inclusion
in minutes to meet the new banking requirements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The action recommended will ensure that the Economic Development Authority is compliant
with banking and audit requirements by updating the bank signatory information for the bank
account.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Bank Signatories
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 7d) Page 2
Subject: Authorize Bank Signatories
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BANK SIGNATORIES
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park has an account at
Citizens Independent Bank; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to update the current bank signatories;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority:
1. Approval is hereby given to authorize the following bank signatories on the Citizens
Independent Bank Economic Development Authority Checking Account.
EDA Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* Executive Director
Phil Finkelstein* EDA President
Brian Swanson** Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer as required by EDA Bylaws
**Secondary authority
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7e
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:
Interfund Loans.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing interfund loans.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Interfund Loans
Does the EDA concur with authorizing interfund loans from the Development Fund to certain tax
increment districts?
BACKGROUND:
In the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the Elmwood TIF District has been identified as a
funding source for several street capital projects, including the Wooddale Avenue and Highway
7 Interchange and West 36th St. Streetscape. While the project costs have been incurred, there
isn’t sufficient increment generated in the district to fund the City’s portion of the costs at this
time. In order to provide a temporary funding source for the City’s obligation in these projects
until additional increment is received, an interfund loan is necessary from the Development Fund
to the Elmwood TIF District. Staff is recommending that an interfund loan resolution be adopted
in the amount of $5 million from the Development Fund to the Elmwood TIF District. The
Development Fund will have sufficient cash available to cover the project costs, and the loan will
be repaid with 4% interest as tax increment is generated in the coming years.
The Ellipse TIF District was created in 2009. New districts typically have expenses for
consultant fees, public notice publication costs, and other administrative expenses that occur
prior to the receipt of any increment. Staff is recommending that an interfund loan resolution be
adopted in the amount of $10,000 from the Development Fund to the Ellipse TIF District. The
Development Fund will have sufficient cash available to cover these administrative expenses,
and the loan will be repaid with 4% interest as future tax increment is generated.
Fund Potential Deficit Maximum Loan
Elmwood TIF District $4,000,000 $5,000,000
Ellipse TIF District $ 5,000 $ 10,000
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions will provide for interfund loans until sufficient increment is generated to fund
administrative expenses and capital improvement needs. This is an important and necessary
action to be in compliance with audit requirements.
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 7e) Page 2
Subject: Interfund Loans
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loans
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director
EDA Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 7e) Page 3
Subject: Interfund Loans
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOANS
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park has created various
special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds may at times run a short term deficit and require an
interfund loan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority:
1. The following interfund loans are approved from the Development Fund as needed:
Fund Maximum Loan
Elmwood TIF District $ 5,000,000
Ellipse TIF District $ 10,000
2. Such loans are to be repaid with 4% interest when sufficient resources are available.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
December 20, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read the attached Resolution and present a plaque to James L. Brimeyer to
recognize his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park serving on the Southwest Transitway
Policy Advisory Committee led by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Brimeyer will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The
Mayor is asked to read the Resolution and present Mr. Brimeyer with a plaque in recognition of
his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JAMES L. BRIMEYER FOR SERVICE TO
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ON THE
SOUTHWEST TRANSITWAY POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, James L. Brimeyer served on the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) representing the City of St. Louis Park over a several year period; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer engaged thoughtfully on policy-making relating to regional
transit studies and decisions in relation to the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer continually advised the City Council and citizens on issues
and decisions; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer successfully represented the best interests of the City of St.
Louis Park and its citizens in planning for light rail transit service for the community.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota by this Resolution and public record, would like to recognize James L.
Brimeyer for his great contributions and years of service to the City of St. Louis Park serving on
the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity (arrived
at 6:41 p.m.), Julia Ross, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Paul Omodt.
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), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Curt Rahman (CKJ Properties, LLC), Jeff Miller (Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.), and
Kim Justesen (Eliot Site Reuse Study Task Force representative).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 29 and December 13, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 29th, noting
that this will be a joint City Council/School Board meeting to discuss the freight rail matter. He
indicated that because a large crowd is expected for this meeting, the lobby, community room,
and Westwood room will be available so that people can watch the meeting on the television
monitors; the meeting will also be broadcast live on cable TV.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that a notice be placed on the local access channel
informing residents that parking and space are limited and that the meeting will be televised live
on cable. He also suggested that the notice explain that this is a joint City Council/School Board
meeting for the purpose of reviewing the two freight rail reports from the County and there will
be limited time for community input at this meeting and there will be time for input later.
Mr. Harmening also presented the proposed study session agenda for December 13th.
2. Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application – CKJ Properties, LLC
(Former Bikemasters Building)
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and advised that the EDA has received a request for CAP
assistance from CKJ Properties, LLC to assist in the renovation of the former Bikemasters
property located at 3540 Dakota Avenue South. He stated that in September of this year, Mr.
Curt Rahman purchased the property with the intent of renovating and re-leasing the property as
he has done with a number of other properties in the City. He indicated that the building is in
substantial disrepair and Mr. Rahman intends to replace the windows, doors, flooring, ceilings,
electrical, plumbing, and HVAC equipment. He noted that this property is in an important
redevelopment area of the City and Mr. Rahman plans to spend approximately $210,000 in
renovations and is requesting $70,000, or one-third of the amount of renovation, to replace the
inefficient HVAC systems in the building. He indicated the property is currently valued at
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
$725,000 and upon renovation it could be assessed for $1.2 to $1.3 million by 2012. He
explained that the structure of the CAP program is similar to other projects, whereby the EDA
will reimburse qualified construction costs upon proof that were costs incurred and will be
structured as a forgivable loan provided Mr. Rahman holds the property for five years, at which
point the entire loan would be forgiven. He then introduced Mr. Rahman.
Mr. Rahman provided a history of CKJ Properties, LLC and stated he purchased the former
Bikemasters property after it went into foreclosure and believes the building can be rented to a
number of different tenants because of the multiple entrances. He stated that the building is
currently vacant and he plans to spend the next several months fixing up the building, including
replacement of the eight HVAC units. He indicated he has already completed the landscaping on
the back of the building, as well as removal of all the garbage, replacement of half of the glass in
the building, and replacement of the security lighting and rusted doors.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he will not be voting on this item because he suggested to
Mr. Rahman that he apply for the CAP assistance. He stated that Mr. Rahman is a small property
owner and this request represents exactly the size and type of assistance the EDA has been eager
to provide, i.e., to help small businesses. He asked Mr. Rahman if he has received any inquiries
about leasing.
Mr. Rahman replied that he has placed some signs on the highway and spoke with someone that
day who is interested in the building. He added he felt that this property would be a good
location for a snowboard/bike shop.
Councilmember Mavity stated this request is exactly the type of assistance the CAP program was
designed for.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if the City would be reaching an agreement in advance with Mr.
Rahman on the minimum assessed valuation of the property after the repairs are completed.
Mr. Hunt stated that proposed projects under the CAP program are reviewed on a case by case
basis. In this case, it was thought that the City would not establish a minimum assessed valuation
of the property prior to providing the financial assistance. He indicated that this property has
gone through a tax court petition and upon renovation, the assessed value will increase
substantially. He stated minimum property assessments are typically put in place when a TIF
district is created. He added that in the case of Hardcoat, a minimum property assessment will be
included in the Development Contract because the City would be establishing a TIF District. In
this case, because of the size of the project, no TIF District is being established so no so
minimum property assessment will be necessary.
It was the consensus of the City Council to provide up to $70,000 in financial assistance through
the EDA’s Construction Assistance Program to assist in the renovation of the former
Bikemasters building.
Mr. Hunt advised that a development contract will be presented for Council review in early
January.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
3. Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Jeff Miller, consultant with
Hoisington Koegler Group and Mr. Kim Justesen, Eliot Site Reuse Study Task Force
representative. She discussed the community process undertaken to date and stated the intent
was to define the use parameters prior to sale of the property and to gain consensus on general
redevelopment items. She then presented the draft guidelines prepared following the task force
meetings which took place over the summer.
Mr. Justesen expressed his thanks to Ms. McMonigal for allowing him to address the Council
regarding the Eliot Site Reuse Study Task Force and stated that when this process began, there
was a fair amount of skepticism about what would happen with the site. He indicated that people
just wanted to be heard and he expressed his appreciation to City staff, Mr. Miller and his
colleagues, and the School Board, for their willingness to sit back and let the neighborhood have
its say. He stated that there were a number of residents who were concerned about what would
happen to the neighborhood, but it became clear that resident’s fears of not being listened to
were unfounded and that their ideas were in fact being considered. He stated that residents soon
recognized that economics play a big role and if too many constraints are placed on the School
Board, the property will not sell; as a result, a consensus began to emerge as to what would be
appropriate for the site in terms of design principles. He reiterated that the neighborhood is
appreciative of the time they were allowed to present their ideas and to be heard.
Mr. Miller explained that Vision St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park’s Livable Community Principles,
and the City’s Comprehensive Plan served as a framework in preparing the design guidelines,
and any future development proposal will likely result in the need for a Comprehensive Plan land
use map change from “Civic” to “Medium Density Residential.” He reviewed the site reuse
principles, which includes a mix of medium density residential land uses, with concentration of
taller and higher density buildings on the southern half of the site toward Cedar Lake Road. He
stated that the principles also stress the importance of complementing the existing scale and
character of the neighborhood, incorporating open space visible to the public, enhancing the
triangular open space area along Cedar Lake Road, and encouraging owner-occupied housing.
He also reviewed the site design guidelines which recommends a minimum of two types of
residential land uses and encourages public access to open spaces. He stated that the task force
felt strongly that any redevelopment should accommodate parking on the site rather than on-
street parking. He explained the building design guidelines, which include recommendations on
massing and placement, height, and frontage and articulation. He indicated the guidelines
recommend building heights in the southern area of the site should be two to five stories, with a
preference stated for lower building heights if possible; building heights in the northern area of
the site should be two to three stories.
Ms. McMonigal advised that a number of comments were received at the October 14th meeting
regarding height and concerns regarding on-street parking; a petition was submitted by a task
force member for no more than three stories across the entire site. She stated that residents have
commented that they felt they were listened to, that they trusted the process, and that they
appreciated that their comments at each meeting were reflected in the work of the consultants.
She added that the neighborhood has requested an opportunity for additional input when any
development proposal is brought forward. She advised that a meeting with the School Board is
scheduled on December 13th and following any additional edits to the guidelines, the guidelines
will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
Councilmember Ross expressed her appreciation to staff and the consultants for their thoughtful
consideration of the neighborhood comments and concerns. She stated that the neighborhood
remains very interested in being included throughout the redevelopment process and asked that
the School Board and City staff continue to keep the neighborhood involved in the future use and
redevelopment of the site.
Councilmember Mavity expressed her support for the community process. She asked if there
were any shadowing concerns for the redevelopment of the site.
Ms. McMonigal advised that the current building does not shadow any adjacent uses and stated
that any redevelopment proposal would be required to meet the City’s shadow ordinance.
Councilmember Finkelstein complimented staff on the cooperative neighborhood process. He
expressed concern that any single family homes built on the site will not fit the character of the
area and overwhelm the neighborhood.
Councilmember Santa also expressed her support for the community process and stated that the
draft design guidelines represent a worthwhile result of the process. She indicated that she was
in favor of a variety of different housing types, and liked the idea of having seniors and families
living in close proximity to one another.
Mr. Justesen explained that the single biggest issue worked on by the task force started with the
idea of having only single family homes on the site; as time went on, it became clear that in order
to attract redevelopment, a mixed use would be required. He indicated that the site itself is
physically not large enough to sustain a large five-story complex and the task force
recommended a maximum of three stories.
The City Council discussed future rezoning of the site as it relates to the design guidelines.
It was the consensus of the City Council to accept the Eliot School Site Design Guidelines as
developed and to incorporate the Site Design Guidelines into the neighborhood section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. 2011 Budget and Utility Rates
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and advised that the Truth in Taxation notices were
mailed last week; the notices reflected a levy increase up to 4.88%. He stated that Council will
approval the final 2011 budget and property tax levy on December 20th.
Mr. Swanson presented the proposed levy options for 2011 and 2012 as previously discussed by
Council. He then presented a sample illustration of the impact of a 4.88% levy on a median
value home in St. Louis Park of $234,100 for 2010 and $223,400 for 2011, including water,
sewer, storm drainage, solid waste, and franchise fee increases; the estimated change from 2010
to 2011 is $150.40 per year. He also presented a sample illustration of the impact of a 4.88%
levy on a home valued at $500,000; the estimated change using the same assumptions for utilities
and franchise fee increases equates to an increase of $252.54 per year. He presented further
sample illustrations of the impact of a 4.0% levy as well as a 2.95% levy. He noted that the
City’s property values are holding steady, but the City will see some of the tax burden shifting to
St. Louis Park residents due to the fiscal disparities pool.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that her inclination is to hold the levy at 4.0% in order to keep the
levy at a more even rate in 2011 and 2012.
Mr. Swanson stated that if the preliminary levy were reduced to 4.0%, there would be challenges
in the Park Improvement Fund projected out in 2020, resulting in a higher levy needed in 2012.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed concern that the City may face additional budget challenges
particularly given the recent changes in the legislature. She stated that the State will likely be
forced to make additional cuts, resulting in cities having to take on more services that the State
currently provides, e.g., cities may have to do their own prosecutions and administrative
hearings. She indicated she was supportive of retaining a 4.88% levy for 2011, and added that
the impact to taxpayers between 4.88% and 4.0% is minimal.
Mr. Harmening advised that staff has been preparing year-end projections for 2010 and those
projections show the City ending the year in the black, which results in a healthy fund balance
for the City. He stated that it may make sense to move some of this money into the City’s
capital budget areas where it is needed versus maintaining the money in the general fund
balance, which could be used to pay for the capital portion of the levy, thereby providing an
option to lower the levy for 2011 and still allow the City to remain in the same financial position.
He explained that the fire station bonds are driving the levy increase for 2012. He advised that
there is a 1999 G.O. bond issue coming off in 2014 in the amount of $500,000 and he felt the
City has some flexibility in its reserves to accelerate that bond issue coming off by two years or
using reserve dollars to pay off the bond, which means the capital portion of the levy could be
written down by half a million dollars.
Councilmember Santa agreed that the difference between a 4.88% levy and a 4.0% levy is
minimal. She stated she would prefer to bring more stability to the City’s finances across the
board and was comfortable with the 4.88% levy.
Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Santa.
Councilmember Mavity asked if this is the right time to look at the City’s overall budget in terms
of staffing ratios, particularly in the Police Department.
Ms. Gohman stated that staff will be reviewing staffing ratios with Council in 2011, including
the possible addition of two police officers.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that there are a lot of people in the community on limited
means and who are unemployed. He felt that the Council should give serious consideration to
reducing the 2011 levy given the City Manager’s remarks regarding the City’s healthy fund
balance and shifting some of the City’s reserves to the capital side of the budget.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger respectfully disagreed and reiterated that the difference between a 2.95%
and 4.88% levy is small and the impact on any given person is minimal, while the impact on the
City’s budget is significant. She stated that the City is not over-funded, there are a number of
projects needing to be done and funds should be earmarked for those projects. She reiterated her
concern about the uncertainty with the current legislature and stated this is not the time to take
the City’s budget down to the bone when the City could get hit with additional expenses.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that the City’s budget reflects the fact that the City is doing
everything it can to act responsibly in the long term by putting other fee structures in place and
investing and planning ahead to assure that a healthy infrastructure is in place for the future. She
reiterated that her inclination would be to reduce the preliminary 4.88% levy because the City
has enough of a strategy in place for the short term until it is determined what will happen at the
State level.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Truth in Taxation hearing on December 6th will present a budget
using a 4.88% levy; following public comment, the Council will have an opportunity to further
discuss the levy at its December 13th study session and formally adopt the budget on December
20th.
Councilmember Ross requested information regarding the City’s communications to residents
regarding the tax levy and budget.
Mr. Harmening explained that communications have been sent to residents explaining the tax
levy and budget; residents will also be receiving an insert in their Xcel Energy and CenterPoint
bills regarding the franchise fee increase. He stated that additional communications could be
prepared for the local access channel and/or a guest column in the newspaper.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked that the communication also address the difference between the
City’s budget process that takes place in December and the valuation process that occurs in the
spring.
Councilmember Mavity asked that a summary explanation of the City’s budget be included.
Councilmember Santa suggested including information about where tax dollars are spent.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to adopt a 4.88% property tax levy for
2011, with the understanding that the December 6th Truth in Taxation hearing will assume a
4.88% property tax levy.
5. 2010 City Manager Performance Evaluation
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
Councilmember Ross stated that she liked the process used in 2009 and was amenable to hiring
J. Forrest again.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he felt the process used in 2009 worked well and
suggested that feedback be obtained not only from department heads but also from randomly
selected employees or elected leadership from the unions.
Ms. Gohman advised that the City recently completed a city-wide climate study that includes
comments regarding the City Manager and Department Directors; this information will be
presented to Council in the future.
The Council agreed that a copy of the executive report of the climate study should also be
provided to the Council for their review with this process.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3a) Page 7
Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 22, 2010
It was the consensus of the City Council to retain the services of J. Forrest to facilitate the City
Manager’s 2010 annual performance evaluation.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Council discussed the recent events in the City which resulted in negative publicity.
Mr. Zwilling discussed how staff responds to media requests for information. He discussed
Chief Luse’s press conference following the Lakeland Inn murder. He stated that requests for
information following the Iowa murders were significant; however the city was limited in what it
could release because the suspect is a juvenile. He also discussed the upcoming Channel 4 report
following the recent dismissal of charges against a robbery suspect in Minneapolis, Richfield,
and St. Louis Park in which the Judge criticized the cities on the line-up process used. He stated
that inquiries regarding the ruling were directed to the County Attorney since the County
Attorney prosecuted these cases.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that she received several calls related to the Lakeland Inn murder
because of its proximity to a robbery Friday night in the Fern Hill neighborhood and another
robbery on Glenhurst about a month ago. She indicated that it appears some people are drawing
the conclusion that the robberies occurred because of the Lakeland Inn and persons who visit the
Inn are behind these robberies. She stated she received requests for information about police
visits to the Lakeland Inn as well as arrest information.
Mr. Zwilling stated that aggregate data has been compiled on the types of calls at this location
and agreed to provide this data.
Councilmember Santa stated that she received a comment asking about the City’s provisional
license requirements and whether this applies to the Lakeland Inn.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the City’s provisional license requirements will be reviewed with
Chief Luse and Mr. Hoffman.
The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. October 2010 Monthly Financial Report
8. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Project Update
9. Community Recreation Survey Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Joint City Council / School Board Meeting
City of St. Louis Park
Council Chambers 3rd Floor
November 29, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.
Council Members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Sue Sanger, Anne Mavity, Sue Santa, Julia Ross, Phil
Finkelstein, and Paul Omodt.
School Board Members present: Board chair, Nancy Gores, Bruce Richardson, Jim Yarosh, Julie
Sweitzer, Larry Shapiro, Rolf Peterson, and Pam Rykken.
City Staff present: Tom Harmening, City Manager; Bridget Gothberg, Organizational
Development Coordinator, Kevin Locke, Community Development Director, and Meg
McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor.
School District staff present: Dr. Debra Bowers, Superintendent and Lisa Greene, Community
Education Director.
Meeting
The City Council and School Board discussed received the results of two freight rail studies done by
consultants from Hennepin County. The studies were the Kenilworth Corridor: Analysis of Freight
Rail/LRT Coexistence and TCWR Route Alternatives Study.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 6, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:35 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), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), City
Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Inspections
(Mr. Hoffman), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr.
Heintz), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), 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 25, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Minutes of November 1, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Study Session Minutes of November 8, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Special Study Session Minutes of November 15, 2010
Councilmember Ross requested that an additional paragraph be added to page 2 that
states “Councilmember Ross requested information regarding solar options as a form of
energy for the fire stations.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
3e. City Council Minutes of November 15, 2020
Councilmember Ross requested that the third paragraph on page 4 be revised to add
“Councilmember Sanger also asked if fiber optics were being considered for the
development.”
Councilmember Ross also requested that a paragraph be added that states
“Councilmember Ross asked if this is the first project of this size for Eldridge.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 10-141 authorizing award of the 2011 St. Louis Park Arts
and Culture Grants.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-142 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 No. 10-143 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 No. 10-144 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 No. 10-145 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.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of
all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2011 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Mayor Jacobs stated that the 2011 proposed budget and tax levy will be presented this
evening, along with the truth in taxation hearing, and Council will defer formal action on
the budget and tax levy until December 20th.
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and indicated that Council directed staff to
present a budget that holds the line and maintains the current level of services that exist
today. He stated that Council also believes that investment in the City’s infrastructure is
important; those systems are wearing out and Council has had a history of being
proactive to make sure that those assets are well maintained and to make sure the City is
reinvesting in infrastructure so that the City does not fall behind. He explained that the
proposed levy increase is 4.88%, or approximately $1.1 million, with approximately $1
million going to the City’s infrastructure and the remainder to cover inflationary
increases in expenses.
Mr. Swanson explained that the Truth in Taxation public hearing is an effort to encourage
more transparency between the City and its constituents. He presented information
regarding the City’s budget process undertaken in 2010 and noted that final levy
certification will occur on December 20th. He provided an overview of what items are
included in the City’s budget and reviewed the 2010 adopted budget and 2011
preliminary budget. He stated that total General Fund and Park and Rec revenues and
expenditures are approximately $29 million, with a .55% increase for 2011. He advised
that intergovernmental revenue showed a significant reduction due to the recent
termination of dispatch services with a neighboring community; however, the City’s
investment in public safety remains consistent. He discussed the tax levy process and tax
levy allocation, and stated the proposed levy will allocate approximately $900,000 to the
Park Improvement Fund; this fund requires additional funding for capital needs. He
stated that the City ranks 19th out of 46 for City residential property taxes in Hennepin
County, and ranks 23rd out of 46 for overall residential property taxes in Hennepin
County.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ron Blitenthal, 2724 Kipling Ave., requested further information regarding how it is
determined whether residential property taxes go up. He stated that his property value
went down for the first time but his overall estimated taxes were going up 9.5-10% on a
reduced assessment.
Mr. Bultema stated that taxes are heavily related to what overall valuations are doing
with respect to the rest of the community. He indicated that some of the housing stock
was moving down in value while others have moved down at a greater pace. He noted
that values of homes in the $200,000-$300,000 bracket have remained relatively stable.
Mr. Harmening stated that properties that saw their taxes going down were primarily
lower value properties within the City. He stated that for those properties with higher
values and that have remained more stable in their values, their share of the property tax
pie has grown larger.
Mr. Blitenthal reiterated his concern that his property taxes went up almost 10% and
encouraged Council to continue to try to keep tax increases relatively flat relative to
inflation, particularly in this difficult economy.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Councilmember Sanger noted that one reason many of the City’s homeowners are paying
more in taxes has to do with the fact that the City’s housing stock has kept its value more
compared to commercial properties, thus commercial properties are paying a smaller
share of the City’s overall tax bill.
Illson Johnson, 1319 Texas Avenue, expressed concern that their property taxes went up
$300. She stated that they are on a fixed income and questioned how the City expects
them to pay this.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council remains sensitive to people who are on fixed
incomes or who are currently unemployed. He noted that Council will continue its
discussion regarding the 2011 budget and tax levy before taking action later this month.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the Council has had many long and difficult
discussions regarding the 2011 budget and tax levy. He stated that the proposed 4.88%
levy was based on information available to Council at the time and represents Council’s
support for funding its capital needs, including the fire stations. He indicated that he felt
the 4.88% levy was too high, in light of recent updated financial information and the City
Manager indicated at a recent Council meeting that a 2.95% levy would take care of the
City’s capital needs, would allow money to be put into the Park Fund, and the City would
be okay for 2012. He acknowledged the importance of maintaining a healthy fund
balance, but given the difficult economy, he felt the Council should seriously consider
lowering the levy amount.
6b. Public Hearing – Louisiana Court Bond Refunding – General Obligation
Bonds – Series 2010C
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and advised that the overall refinancing plan will
result in an approximate $1.5 million reduction in the debt paid by the City and carried by
Louisiana Court. He stated that the refunding will serve to improve the overall
sustainability of the project and reduce the City’s financial exposure.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
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
Resolution No. 10-146 and 10-147
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced Mark Ruff from Ehlers &
Associates.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Louisiana Court Series 2010C
Mr. Ruff advised that the bond issue for Louisiana Court will refund the existing bonds
and will significantly reduce Louisiana Court’s debt obligation. He stated that the interest
rate on the old bonds was 5.75%; a competitive bond sale was held today and the winning
bid was 5.2% submitted by Northland Securities. He explained that the dollar amount
was revised to $1,770,000 to account for the larger debt service reserve. He added that
the City’s AAA bond rating was also confirmed by Standard & Poor’s.
Councilmember Finkelstein pointed out that only ten cities in the State have a “AAA”
rating and this reflects the City’s fiscal strength.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-10-146 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.
Councilmember Omodt expressed disappointment that there were no representatives
present from Project for Pride in Living (PPL). He stated that PPL has disappointed the
City in the past with its management practices and the City has agreed to a significant
investment in this property.
Councilmember Mavity acknowledged that this project has had trouble over the past ten
years and was hopeful that PPL can provide safe, affordable housing for St. Louis Park
residents. She stated that she was supportive of the bond refinancing and felt it would
help keep this project stable into the future.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would support this primarily because it will benefit
both Louisiana Court and the City by lowering the interest rate and provide additional
capital to make needed repairs to the property, and because this refunding will not cost
the City anything and does not represent taxpayer money. She expressed concern that this
is the third time that Louisiana Court has asked for City assistance whereas other
apartment complexes in the City with rents in the same general range have not needed
help and have much lower vacancy rates.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that this is a difficult situation but the overall
refinancing plan is the fiscally prudent thing to do.
Councilmember Ross agreed and stated that significant improvements are needed to this
property and the property cannot be allowed to deteriorate further.
The motion passed 7-0.
Fire Stations – Series 2010D
Mr. Ruff presented the sale report for the $13,025,000 taxable General Obligation Bonds
and reported that six bids were received; the low bidder was Baird at 4.68%. He
explained that these are taxable bonds which can only be used for new construction, and
include a 35% rebate provided by the federal government.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-147 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.
Councilmember Ross stated that this is a wise use of taxpayer dollars and the fire stations
are needed to ensure the continued safety of residents as well as the continued safety of
the firefighters.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Project (LC) Deferred Loan
Resolution No. 10-148
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report and stated that this deferred loan is part of the
overall refinancing plan for the Louisiana Court project and will assist in funding a
reduction in the debt and undertaking capital improvements at LC. She advised that the
$500,000 loan will reduce the City’s overall financial risk and that by contributing
$500,000, the City has been able to leverage an additional 1.55 million in funding from
MHFA, Hennepin County and the Family Housing Fund. She indicated that the source of
the funding for the City loan is the Park Center TIF District. The loan will have a fixed
interest rate of 2% and payments will be deferred until the loan is due in 30 years or until
the property is sold or refinancing occurs. She discussed the conditions of the deferred
loan, including a requirement that PPL must participate in and endorse rehab
improvements in the project. She noted that a joint housing agency committee will
oversee and monitor the operation and management of the property and PPL must also
commit to having a community space and on-site programming for residents. She added
that the closing is scheduled for December 29th.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-148 Approving a Loan Agreement Between the City of St. Louis Park
and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership and Related Documents.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she would not support this deferred loan and felt that
the bond refinancing should be sufficient for PPL to make the needed capital
improvements to the property.
Councilmember Santa acknowledged Councilmember Sanger’s concerns and stated that
the funding for the loan is from a TIF District designed for affordable housing and
represents an allowable use of TIF District money. She added that this represents an
appropriate use of TIF funds that is not diverting from other uses, e.g., general funds.
Mr. Locke stated that this is correct and noted that no tax increment dollars can be used
for general purposes and can only be used for affordable housing purposes.
Councilmember Mavity stated that it has been Council’s desire to address this project and
to make it successful by investing the amount of resources that it needs. She expressed
her support for the refinancing plan and felt it would reduce the annual operating costs
for the project.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Councilmember Omodt stated that he would support the deferred loan but reiterated his
disappointment that PPL representatives were not in attendance this evening. He
indicated that the funds for this loan come from a TIF District designated for affordable
housing and the City has chosen this property over all other properties and uses.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
8c. Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and stated the restaurant use is permitted in the C-2
Zoning District and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for drive-through
service. He discussed the neighborhood meetings and public process to date. He
summarized the traffic study and circulation analysis completed by SRF Consulting
Group and stated the revised site plan includes the addition of a drive-through “hut.” He
stated that the proposed use includes a vehicle stacking area within 100’ of a residential
property, failing to meet a condition for a drive-through CUP. He added that the stacking
area could potentially be moved to accommodate the 100’ residential setback
requirement. He discussed traffic and pedestrian movement and stated that the proposed
use does not qualify under the provisions governing shared parking in the zoning
ordinance, adding it is not reasonable to conclude that the uses that would share parking
have substantially different times of highest peak parking demand. He advised that the
proposed in-vehicle sales/service is also inconsistent with the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan update, including provisions from the Minikahda Vista
neighborhood plan.
Councilmember Omodt questioned whether there were enough parking spaces available
at the site.
Mr. Fulton stated that the restaurant is 4,300 square feet with a requirement of one space
per 60 square feet of restaurant. He added that the restaurant has 106 seats available in
the restaurant itself and the shared parking agreement needs to follow the requirements
found in the Ordinance.
Mr. David Anderson, Frauenshuh Companies, appeared before the City Council and
stated the property is one among four at Miracle Mile. He indicated that from a
functional standpoint, there are 523 parking spaces in this development and based on
overall utilization and capacity, you will find it functions at a 70% rate of use.
Mr. Nick Spierdes, Spierdes Reiners Architects, appeared before the City Council and
stated that the revisions to the site plan came from working through the concept process
first and responding to comments and suggestions from staff, the Planning Commission,
as well as the neighborhood. He indicated that the entire operation was able to be put on
the site by allowing cars to stack on this property, splitting the two parking areas, and
adding the drive-through hut. He stated that they believe the interface between the
vehicles and the pedestrians currently exist on the site and improves the site to work in
the safest manner possible. He added that consistent with the City’s plan, the sidewalk
was added to the current sidewalk running along Excelsior Boulevard and the exit is
right-out only, marked clearly with signage.
Councilmember Ross expressed a safety concern with potential conflicts created by cars
backing out of the parking spaces.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 8
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Mr. Jim Benshoof, Benshoof and Associates, appeared before the City Council and stated
that the traffic issues have been well addressed and they agree with the conclusions
produced by the City’s traffic consultant. He stated the site produced satisfactory traffic
operations subject to certain improvements and the plan includes the recommended
improvements. He indicated that not only will the drive-through operation not cause a
parking problem, but asserted that the parking situation will be better. He presented a
chart with a summary of expected changes in parking availability which demonstrates
that restaurants with drive-through operations have less parking demand; the summary
shows a reduction in total parking demand using Institute of Traffic Engineer (ITE)
projections is 11 and they determined that seven spaces will be lost if the drive-through is
allowed. He added that they intend to also relocate employee parked vehicles, which
results in a net increase in parking spaces available for businesses in the area without a
drive-through is 10 and a 22 space reduction in parking demand.
Mr. Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, appeared before the City Council and presented a
petition from customers and business owners in support of the proposed drive-through.
He also presented a letter of support from Kimberley Young and requested that the
petition and letter be placed into the official record. He stated it is important for the
Council to keep in mind that if reasonable conditions can be attached to this project, it
should be approved. He stated that if a reasonable declaration of easements can be arrived
at, that is a reasonable condition to impose on the project. He expressed his appreciation
to Council for allowing continuances of time that allowed them to make improvements to
the proposed plan and address the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that an
additional meeting with the neighborhood was held last week during which the
neighborhood was shown the refinements to the plan, including the restriction of hours of
operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; it is proposed that this restriction be made a
covenant that goes with the land and is associated with the Dairy Queen use. He indicated
that the drive-through operation is important to the viability of this business and Dairy
Queen believes that with reasonable conditions it can move forward. He discussed the
issues with the site and noted that they are providing for eight cars in the stacking areas;
six are required. He stated that the stacking area must be at least 100’ from a neighboring
property line and with minimal adjustment, that condition can be attached. He stated that
the City’s traffic consultant has indicated that the drive-through operation will have no
impact on the level of service, and this was confirmed by Mr. Benshoof. He stated that
they enhanced the site plan as recommended by SRF so as not to impede traffic in the
area and to identify pedestrian crossings. He noted that by moving up the menu boards,
traffic will be stopped to provide pedestrian movement in an appropriate location. He
stated that the east driveway will be one way; in addition, as noted by both SRF and Mr.
Benshoof, U-turns can safely be made at the locations indicated. He stated that access on
the collector roadway has been addressed. He stated that with respect to the
Comprehensive Plan, this is not a major redevelopment, this is a walkable use, and with
the addition of the sidewalk into the use, it improves its walkability and pedestrian
improvements will be added. He noted that with regard to the CUP requirements, all uses
have been relocated onto the Dairy Queen parcel, the access to the drive-through window
is provided by the shared parking arrangement, parking will comply with the Zoning
Ordinance, and the proposed use will comply with the Ordinance when taking into
account the site improvements. He added that it is their conclusion that this project can
meet the City’s conditions and in order to ultimately make this a viable business in this
location, it needs to have a drive-through.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 9
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Ms. Rose Doherty, 4968 West 40th Street, appeared before the City Council and stated
that in order to go west on Excelsior Boulevard, cars exiting the Dairy Queen will have to
scramble to get into that left hand turn lane. She expressed concern that because of the
limitation of space and ability to make that turn, cars will turn right on Quentin and use
40th to Wooddale in order to go west on Excelsior Boulevard. She questioned where the
delivery trucks would park. She expressed concern about pedestrian safety and stated
that the City has worked hard to promote a walkable community and this proposal does
not promote a walkable community. She also expressed concern about the noise levels
from the drive-through and the potential for increased litter in the area. She questioned
whether the granting of a CUP for Dairy Queen would set a precedent and urged the
Council to vote against this request.
Ms. Lyn Wik, 3965 Quentin Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and stated
she has no faith in anything offered by Dairy Queen in the way of private agreements or
guarantees. She stated that there is nothing to say that Dairy Queen’s next business
model won’t require extended hours or breakfast, for example. She asked how a private
agreement would impact the City. She presented four photographs showing the parking
area and menu boards from a Dairy Queen and McDonald’s, and stated that she objects to
the idea that Dairy Queen will send its employees to park on the far southeastern corner
of the lot. She stated that this proposal will open the door to additional traffic into the
night causing light and noise pollution. She questioned the accuracy of the traffic study
and the logic in the statement that a 33% increase in business from the drive-through
operation will result in less parking space demand. She stated that there is nothing to
protect the neighborhood from having another fast food business coming into the area if
this CUP is granted. She stated that she recalled the Council making a statement in the
past that there would be no fast food or drive-throughs on the south side of Excelsior
Boulevard and encouraged Council to maintain the integrity of Excelsior Boulevard and
keep its promises to the Minikahda Vista neighborhood.
Howard Polski, 3920 Colorado Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and
expressed his support for the drive-through. He stated that he felt denying the drive-
through was discriminatory and the reduction in traffic makes sense. He stated that there
is a McDonalds across the street and the drive-throughs do about 40% of the business for
these types of restaurants. He indicated that the proposed drive-through hours seemed fair
and he encouraged Council to do all it can to help businesses succeed, particularly in this
difficult economy. He added that Frauenshuh has been a good corporate citizen in the
community.
Margaret Tiffany, 4972 West 40th Street, appeared before the City Council and stated that
she has noticed an increase in traffic in the area, and this represents her biggest concern
with this proposal. She indicated there are no sidewalks on 40th Street and there are a lot
of people walking in this area. She stated she has seen vehicles making illegal left turn
lanes to get into Miracle Mile and did not feel that a sign would deter vehicles from
making illegal left turns. She added that it is not easy to get across Excelsior Boulevard
to make the turn or a U-turn, and felt that people would turn onto Quentin or go through
the Baja site. She stated that the earlier proposal by Wendy’s as well as the Dairy Queen
proposal do not meet the City’s Comprehensive Plan requirements. She encouraged the
Council to not allow this proposal.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 10
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
Councilmember Mavity stated that there seemed to be a disconnect with the statement
that Dairy Queen needs the additional traffic in order to be profitable, while at the same
time the traffic study indicates that this drive-through will not generate so much traffic as
to create a problem in the Miracle Mile center or along Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. Benshoof responded by stating that it is anticipated that traffic entering the Dairy
Queen site will be approximately 20-22 cars during peak business, which equates to one
vehicle every three minutes. He stated the volume increase is small relative to the
existing traffic on Excelsior Boulevard and will not cause a major impact.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Dairy Queen has been a great community partner and
the Frauenshuh family has done great things in the community. She stated that she
appreciated Dairy Queen’s willingness and good faith efforts to address the concerns of
the neighborhood, but there appear to be enough technical challenges that remain as well
as issues with the overall vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan with respect to
walkability and envisioning for the future along Excelsior Boulevard that require her to
vote against this as presented.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the Wendy’s proposal was voted against not because it
was not well thought out or that it would enhance the area. She expressed her concerns
about the proposal’s non-conformance with parking and landscaping requirements and
intensifying of the land use, which are contrary to the way in which the City’s operates.
She stated that the traffic issues are also a concern for her. She stated that from a logic
perspective, she could not understand how adding the drive-through will increase profits
for the business and how the proposed model will not add more traffic to the site. She
expressed concern that pedestrians will have to cross into the exit lane to get into the
restaurant. She stated that the noise issue is also a concern and that noise is a difficult
problem to enforce and she did not feel it was appropriate to have a drive-through so
close to the neighborhood. She indicated that the City has put a lot of passion and energy
into Excelsior Boulevard to make it a more walkable and desirable environment for
residents and having a drive-through operation does not enhance the City’s vision. She
stated that for these reasons, she will not be supporting the request.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the proposal does not meet the City’s general CUP
requirements, because it violates the principal goals of the City’s land use designations,
the proposal will adversely impact Excelsior Boulevard as well as pedestrian traffic in the
area, and there will be an adverse impact on the neighbors due to the proximity of noise
and litter in the area. He agreed that Dairy Queen has been an extraordinary corporate
citizen, but did not believe the proposal has been sufficiently revised to warrant the
Council revisiting the proposal and would not be supporting the request.
Councilmember Omodt requested guidance from the City Attorney regarding the private
agreements and parking easements.
Mr. Scott stated that the first priority is to have parking on the site and the City does
allow in certain circumstances to have a shared parking agreement in order to meet the
City’s parking requirements, as proposed here. He added that before considering shared
parking, you first have to establish that the uses that want to share parking have different
peak times and that is not the case here because they both have substantially the same
peak times. He advised that shared parking would be allowed if it met the criteria
contained in the Ordinance. He stated that a private agreement has been alluded to in the
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3c) Page 11
Subject: City Council Minutes of December 6, 2010
context that the condition only applies to the Dairy Queen and not to any other use. He
explained that general law is that the CUP follows the land so there could be another use
that came in and utilized the drive-through and that use would have to meet the same
conditions. He indicated that the applicant is proposing that they would impose a private
covenant with the City as the beneficiary that would restrict this covenant just to Dairy
Queen and not follow the land, but there is no way the City can absolutely guarantee that
if the CUP is approved for the Dairy Queen drive-through that three years from now you
could not have some other entity wanting a CUP to utilize that drive-through. He stated
that if that happened, the City would have no basis to turn down the new owner, even if a
private covenant were in existence.
Mr. Griffith clarified that the CUP application has not been revised and the documents
contained in the Council agenda reflect the current proposal. He stated that the
declaration of easements and covenants was presented in August and the applicant has
indicated a willingness to further restrict and include the covenant as a condition of
approval. He added that the site plan presented to Council this evening is the site plan
dated October 5, 2010, which shows a 100’ setback. He noted that there is nothing in the
Code requiring the setback to go to the curb line, but the consultant drew the 100’
setback. He advised that the only change suggested this evening is the addition of a
pedestrian walkway over the drive aisle.
Mr. Scott stated that it may be appropriate to make some minor changes to the resolution
and suggested that the motion direct the City Attorney to revise the current resolution in
light of the discussion tonight and to bring the resolution back to Council for final
adoption at its next meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to direct
staff and the City Attorney to revise the current resolution denying a Conditional Use
Permit application for in-vehicle sales and service for property located at 5001 Excelsior
Boulevard, and to bring the revised resolution to the Council for final adoption at its next
meeting.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs expressed the Council’s thanks to the Community Foundation Board, to
Phil Weber for donating his establishment, and to everyone involved in the event held
last Saturday.
Councilmember Santa encouraged residents to attend the public information meeting
scheduled for Thursday, December 9th, from 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m. regarding Mn/DOT’s
proposals for Highway 100 between Highway 7 and County Road 5. She stated the
meeting will be held in the cafeteria of the high school.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:00 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), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
1. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and indicated that the first reading of the Ordinance to
create a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) was approved on November 1st, at which time a
representative of the Doubletree Hotel expressed opposition to the implementation of a lodging
tax. He stated that since that time, staff has been visiting with some of the local hoteliers to
further understand any concerns. He presented information regarding 26 metro area communities
that have adopted a lodging tax of at least 3% and indicated that staff and Bruce Nustad of the
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce continue to believe that opportunities exist in the creation of a
CVB.
Councilmember Ross stated that she raised earlier concerns regarding the impact of a lodging tax
on families. She suggested that the Council establish a period of time for trying the CVB,
perhaps three years, and to revisit the model at the end of that time to see if it is effective. She
added that this should be proposed to the local hoteliers.
Councilmember Omodt agreed that a look-back provision should be put in place, but felt the time
period should be five years in order to allow the CVB to put its programs in place.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that Council has been discussing the creation of a CVB for
two years. He indicated that there has been no opposition by the hoteliers to the proposed
lodging tax until the November 1st public hearing. He expressed frustration that the hoteliers
have not voiced any opposition to the lodging tax at any of the meetings hosted by staff.
Mr. Harmening advised that staff does not feel there is tremendous opposition among the
hoteliers to the creation of a CVB. He stated that at a recent meeting, the hoteliers indicated they
were not convinced there would be a return on the investment, but all the hoteliers indicated if
the City chooses to do this, they were “all in” and expressed to staff that it would be to their
advantage to make sure the CVB is successful.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information about the manner in which the CVB will
be evaluated to measure success. She pointed out that there are other non-hotel businesses in the
City that stand to benefit from the CVB as well.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 3d) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of December 6, 2010
Mr. Harmening stated that the Council will ultimately retain control over the CVB pursuant to
the Operating Agreement and this agreement contains a termination provision such that the City
can terminate its relationship with the CVB and cease funding the CVB with the lodging tax.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the previous CVB materials outlined several goals of the
CVB including a goal that establishes a matrix for quantifying the success of the CVB. She
added it should be Council’s responsibility every year to review this to determine if the CVB is
successful.
Mayor Jacobs stated that it appears it would be prudent to continue to work with the hoteliers
over the next month or so to address their questions or concerns, and to discuss with the hoteliers
the five year look-back provision being proposed by Council; following that, the ordinance
should be placed on the Council’s agenda for second reading.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue to work with the local
hoteliers to further understand and address their questions and concerns, as well as to discuss the
five year look-back provision. It was also the consensus of the City Council to proceed with
adoption of the 2nd Reading of the ordinance.
Councilmember Omodt agreed that staff should continue to work with the local hoteliers, but
preferred to see the 2nd Reading take place sooner rather than later.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will put the second reading of the ordinance on the Council’s
December 20th agenda. He noted that the January 1, 2011 effective date for the lodging tax may
need to be pushed back to give the hoteliers time to implement the new lodging tax.
Fiber Network
Councilmember Mavity suggested that the League of Women Voters be asked to participate on
the fiber optic study task force. She stated there appears to be unreasonably low participation by
women on the task force.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
2. Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
3. Demolition of 3764 Wooddale Avenue, 5718 Goodrich Avenue and 5724 Goodrich
Avenue – Fire Station Project
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution of appreciation to recognize James L. Brimeyer for serving on the
Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee led by Hennepin County Regional Rail
Authority.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
James L. Brimeyer served as the city’s representative on the Southwest Transitway Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) for
several years. In this capacity, Mr. Brimeyer attended meetings, represented the city’s interests,
engaged thoughtfully in studies and policy-making, kept the City Council advised on issues and
decisions, and represented the best interests of the City of St. Louis Park and its citizens in
planning for light rail transit service for the community.
In May of 2010, the Southwest Transitway project was turned over from HCRRA to the
Metropolitan Council and the PAC held its final meeting in May of 2010.
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors James L. Brimeyer for his years
of service.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: James L. Brimeyer Resolution of Appreciation
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JAMES L. BRIMEYER FOR SERVICE TO
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ON THE
SOUTHWEST TRANSITWAY POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, James L. Brimeyer served on the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) representing the City of St. Louis Park over a several year period; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer engaged thoughtfully on policy-making relating to regional
transit studies and decisions in relation to the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer continually advised the City Council and citizens on issues
and decisions; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brimeyer successfully represented the best interests of the City of St.
Louis Park and its citizens in planning for light rail transit service for the community.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota by this Resolution and public record, would like to recognize James L.
Brimeyer for his great contributions and years of service to the City of St. Louis Park serving on
the Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 75-10 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2009-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $13,724.68 for the 2009
MSA Street Improvement Project - Wooddale Avenue with Valley Paving, Inc., Project No.
2009-1101 - City Contract No. 75-10.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the 2010 MSA Street Improvement Project, Project No.
2009-1101. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Valley Paving, Inc on May 6, 2010
in the amount of $137,890.60. This project included asphalt pavement mill and overlay work on
Wooddale Avenue from W. 44th Street to W. 42 ½ Street.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (30 days) at a final contract
cost of $145,912.71, including one change order in the amount of +$1,840.00 plus miscellaneous
quantity overruns amounting to $6,182.11. The majority of the cost overrun can be attributed to
miscellaneous concrete replacements (sidewalk and curb and gutter) that exceeded initial
estimates.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2010 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 20, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 75-10 Valley Paving, Inc. – Project No. 2009-1101
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,724.68 FOR THE
2010 MSA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WITH VALLEY PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2009-1101
CONTRACT NO. 75-10
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 May 6, 2010, Valley Paving, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the 2010 MSA Improvement Project, as per Contract No. 75-10.
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 Amount $ 137,890.60
Change Orders $ 1,840.00
Overruns $ 6,182.11
Final Contract Amount $ 145,912.71
Previous Payments $ 132,188.03
Balance Due $ 13,724.68
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 12-10 Magney Construction, Inc. – Project No. 2008-1400.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $12,000.00 for Water
Treatment Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation with Magney Construction, Inc., Project No. 2008-1400,
City Contract No. 12-10.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to approve the final payment?
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved undertaking the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation, Project No.
2008-1400. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Magney Construction, Inc on
January 19, 2010 in the amount of $857,400.00. This project included filter rehabilitation and
process improvements to Water Treatment Plant No 1 located adjacent to Bronx Park at 2936
Idaho Avenue South.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$869,771.85, including three change orders in the amount of $12,371.85.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2010 capital budget. The project is funded by
the Water Utilities 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 20, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 12-10 Magney Construction, Inc. – Project No. 2008-1400
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,000 FOR THE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 1 REHABILITATION PROJECT
WITH MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-1400
CONTRACT NO. 12-10
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 January 10, 2010, Magney
Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Water Treatment Plant No. 1
Rehabilitation Project, as per Contract No. 12-10.
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 Amount $ 857,400.00
Change Orders $ 12,371.85
Final Contract Amount $ 869,771.85
Previous Payments $ 857,771.85
Balance Due $ 12,000.00
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amend Consultant Contract 02-10 - Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project - Project No.
2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 02-10 which provides engineering construction
services for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project - Project No. 2004-1700.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Construction of the Highway 7 & Wooddale Improvement Project has substantially been completed.
The interchange was open to traffic November 10, 2010. Restoration and other miscellaneous
construction and clean-up work does remain, and final completion of the project is required by July
1, 2011.
Mn/DOT has provided the majority of construction and inspection services for the work completed.
However, the overall responsibility and management of the entire project has continued to reside
with the City.
Due to staff resource limitations, prior to commencing construction in September of 2009, the City
retained the services of SRF Consulting to assist in construction management, which includes the
following:
1. Additional administrative requirements of the Delegated Contract Process (DCP), required for
any project receiving federal aid. For this particular project, two sources of federal funds have
been utilized, including American Resource and Recovery Act (ARRA) and Surface
Transportation Project (STP) funds.
2. Attendance at pre-construction and weekly construction meetings, and review of contractor
payment and reimbursement requests. The consultant also assisted the City and Mn/DOT in
documentation and submittals to the Mn/DOT District State Aid Engineer throughout the project,
the preparation and execution of change orders, scheduling, and assisting with material and
testing certifications.
3. In addition to the Delegated Contract Process requirements described above, SRF’s services
provided for additional coordination and liaison activities with the Mn/DOT field staff, local
property owners, private utilities, and other stakeholders during the course of construction.
Often times during construction as work progresses, supplemental field surveys, changes and/or
adjustments to the plans, and additional engineering assistance and support to the Contractor and
Mn/DOT are always needed during the course of construction. While the project as a whole
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 02-10 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange - Project No. 2004-1700
progressed well, a project of this size and magnitude still required a substantial amount of
involvement by the design engineer during the course of construction. This additional time was
figured into SRF’s original services contract.
At this time, SRF is projected to exceed their budgeted amount of $273,460. The reason for the
overage is due solely to the necessity of utilizing an environmental sub-consultant during the course
of construction. During construction, the Contractor encountered substantial amounts of
contaminated soils. In order to keep the project moving on schedule, ensuring environmental
compliance (including proper construction methods and use and disposal of materials), and
proceeding cost effectively, a geotechnical and environmental professional has been needed on-site
frequently. In addition to the on-site services, the frequent use of a testing laboratory for analysis of
soil and material samples has also been required. American Engineering Testing (AET) has been
performing these services as a sub-consultant to SRF.
The services provided by AET commenced last spring and are anticipated to extend into April of
2011. Initially, it was anticipated that inclusion of the services provided by AET would be
considerably less and could fall within the contract limit fee estimated originally by SRF. Although
the encountering of contaminated materials was anticipated, the extent of the material and the
associated environmental compliance work ultimately required was not. As a result, AET has
provided SRF with an estimated projected total fee of $118,560. When combining the work date
with estimated projections to final completion, a contract amendment is necessary. SRF is therefore
requesting that the total contract amount be increased by $118,560 to a total amount of $392,020.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated SRF Contract Cost
All work performed under this contract is being paid for on a time and materials basis. The initial
source of funding for professional services for this work/project is the HRA levy or other EDA
funds.
The professional services cost for Contract 02-10 (Construction Services) with SRF is now estimated
as follows:
Original Contract $ 273,460
Amendment No. 1 $ 118,560
Total $ 392,020
SRF Contract Terms
The following terms are incorporated into this contract:
1. All SRF contract work is still scheduled for completion by July 1, 2011.
2. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $392,020.
3. SRF has independent contractor status.
4. The City may terminate this contract with seven (7) days notice.
The document utilized for this contract is the City’s standard professional services agreement
developed by the City Attorney.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 02-10 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange - Project No. 2004-1700
Estimated Overall Project Cost
As noted on the attached project cost summary, the estimated overall project budget provided to the
City Council in August, 2009, prior to the commencement of the project, was $19 million. As of
December 1, 2010 the estimated final project cost is $17,750,000.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: Amendment No. 1
Project Cost Summary
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 02-10 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange - Project No. 2004-1700
AMENDMENT NO. 1
CITY of ST. LOUIS PARK
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 02-10
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 6, 2010, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”),
and SRF Consulting Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as “SRF”).
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated August 3, 2009 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes SRF
to provide engineering consulting services for construction services at a cost not to exceed
$273,460.
2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES: This paragraph shall be amended to include the
additional professional services outlined in the SRF letter dated October 13, 2010.
3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES: No changes.
4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES: Subject to the modifications set
forth herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $118,560 from
$273,460 to $392,020.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and________________________________
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
12/01/2010
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project
(Project No. 2004-1700)
Projected Project Costs
Estimate/Budget as Presented to City Council 08/03/09
Expenditures
Construction*$12,300,000
Right of Way $4,500,000
Engineering $1,300,000
Construction Engineering (Mn/Dot)$900,000
Total $19,000,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STIP)$5,885,000
ARRA (Stimulus)$3,465,000
Mn/Dot (Construction Engineering)$900,000
Local $8,750,000
Total $19,000,000
Projected as of 12/01/10
Expenditures
Construction**$10,200,000
Right of Way ***$5,000,000
Engineering $1,650,000
Construction Engineering (Mn/Dot)$900,000
Total $17,750,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STIP)$5,225,000
ARRA (Stimulus)$3,465,000
Mn/Dot (Construction Engineering)$900,000
Local $8,160,000
Total $17,750,000
* Construction cost does not include MCES portion. MCES portion is directly reimbursed from MCES.
** Projected Construction Cost Includes Change Orders and Work Orders. Dos not include MCES portion.
MCES portion is directly reimbursed from MCES.
*** Final Right of Way acquisition costs not yet determined (conservative estimate provided)
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 02-10 - Hwy 7/Wooddale Ave Interchange - Project No. 2004-1700
Page 5
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Resolution Authorizing State Aid Street Designation – W. 44th Street (South City Limits to East City
Limits).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve attached Resolution establishing W. 44th Street as a Municipal State Aid Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to designate West 44th Street as a Municipal State Aid Street?
BACKGROUND:
In a report dated September 27, 2010, the City Council was provided an update regarding the 44th
Street Reconstruction Project (City Project No. 2005-0500). The proposed project considers the
reconstruction of approximately 6,500 feet (1.25 mi.) of W. 44th Street from France Avenue to
Brookside Avenue (see attached Figure 1). Of this distance, 700 feet (about 10 per cent of the total
project length) is located within the City of St. Louis Park. More specifically, W. 44th Street slices
through a corner of the City of St. Louis Park between Glen Place and just east of Wooddale
Avenue. As a result, the administration and delivery of this project is being driven by the City of
Edina.
A corresponding percentage of the project cost (about 10%) is therefore expected to be funded by the
City of St. Louis Park. It is the intent of both cities to utilize Municipal State Aid funds for this
project. West 44th Street is currently designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSAS) route in Edina;
however, the short link within the City of St. Louis Park was thought to be, but is not designated as
such. Therefore, in order for both cities to develop this as an MSAS project and to utilize State Aid
funds for construction, this 700 foot (0.13 mile) link must be officially designated as an MSAS
segment in accordance with Mn/DOT State Aid rules and procedures.
In order for a street segment to be eligible for designation as an MSAS route, a street must terminate
at another MSAS street, County highway, or State Highway. Because W. 44th Street is already
designated MSAS on both ends of the link, the criteria is met. In addition, the City is allowed to
designate 28.98 miles (20%) of its streets to the MSAS system. Currently the City has designated
27.91 miles of streets leaving 1.07 miles of streets yet to be designated to the MSAS system. The
0.13 miles needed for the W. 44th Street segment is therefore available.
Mn/DOT State Aid staff has reviewed the City’s request to designate the 0.13 mile link of W. 44th
Street in St. Louis Park as an MSAS route. Mn/DOT has granted approval of the designation,
conditioned on the receipt of a City Council Resolution ordering the same. A Commissioner’s Order
will follow from Mn/DOT upon receiving the Council resolution.
With the support of St. Louis Park staff, the City of Edina has led a project public process for the
project since last fall, and a second informational meeting was held on December 8. A more detailed
report and update on the project process will be provided to Council in January of 2011.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Resolution Authorizing State Aid Street Designation – W. 44th Street
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As explained in the September 27, 2010 report, staff proposes the use of State Aid funds to pay for
the City of St. Louis Park’s share of the project cost. However, as explained in the previous report,
width requirements will likely require a variance from State Aid standards as part of the approval
process. In the event a variance is not attained, and City of Edina chooses to undertake construction
of this project without the use of State Aid funds, St. Louis Park will need to find an alternate source
to fund its share. City policy (Resolution No. 00-078) provides that the source of funding for the
City’s share for this type of project would come from general fund revenues and special assessments
to the abutting property owners.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Project Location Map (Figure 1)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Resolution Authorizing State Aid Street Designation – W. 44th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET
(West 44th Street from South City Limits to East City Limits)
WHEREAS, It appears to the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the street
hereinafter described should be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of
Minnesota Law.
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that the road described as follows to-wit:
West 44th Street from the South city limits to the East city limits (0.13 miles in length)
Be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City,
subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for
consideration, and that upon the Commissioner’s approval of the designation of said street or portion
thereof, that same be constructed, improved, and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the
City of St. Louis Park, to be numbered and known as Municipal State Aid Street 318.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Resolution Authorizing State Aid Street Designation – W. 44th Street
Meeting Date: December 20, 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: Special Meeting
TITLE:
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution committing specific revenue sources to special revenue funds and
approve amendments to the City’s Fund Balance Policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with early implementation of GASB 54 for fiscal year
end 2010?
BACKGROUND:
During the 2011 budget process, staff briefly explained the requirements of GASB 54 and its
effects on the presentation of fund balance. Staff explained that it allows the City to use different
methods to show anticipated spending of its financial resources. This helps demonstrate
financial planning for accumulated resources and subsequently how they may or will be spent.
GASB Statement 54 is required to be implemented for year end 2011, and staff is recommending
early implementation. This allows the City to experience the benefits of the Statement, as well as
provide time for staff to work through any necessary changes before required implementation.
New Fund Balance Classifications
GASB 54 separates fund balance into five new categories. Under the old standards there were
three categories: Reserved, Designated, and Undesignated. The new categories are more
descriptive, and focus on how the City plans to use its resources. A brief description of each of
the new categories is listed below along with examples of each.
Nonspendable fund balance- amounts that are not in a spendable form or are required to be
maintained intact. An example of nonspendable fund balance is inventory. Inventory cannot be
spent without being converted to cash first.
Restricted fund balance- amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions. An
example of restricted fund balance is grant proceeds required to be spent for a specific purpose.
The Cable TV capital grant received from Time Warner is an example of a restricted grant.
Committed fund balance- amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined
by a formal action of the government’s highest level of decision-making authority (City
Council). Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the government taking the same
formal action that imposed the constraint originally. An example of committed fund balance
would be the City Council committing cable franchise fees for cable TV programming.
Assigned fund balance- amounts a government intends to use for a specific purpose; intent can
be expressed by the government body or by an official or body to which the governing body
delegates the authority (City Manager and/or Controller). An example of assigned fund balance
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 2
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
would be the City’s portion of a construction project where other funding was received with the
requirement of a match.
Unassigned fund balance- residual amounts that are available for any purpose in the general
fund. This category can only be found in the general fund, as by being in any other fund, the
City has stated its intent to use it for the purpose of that fund.
Committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance combine to make unrestricted fund balance.
Changes Due to GASB 54
This does not change how the City of St. Louis Park conducts business. All of the changes will
be from a presentation standpoint in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
and the Fund Balance Policies. Other than the new classifications being presented in the CAFR,
there are several other changes of note.
One change will be related to the City’s Police and Fire Pension Fund. This fund is currently
classified as a Special Revenue Fund. Under GASB 54, this fund no longer meets the definition
of a Special Revenue fund, as there are no specific revenue sources. Based on the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan and Long Range Financial Management Plan, the majority of the
expenditures in the Police and Fire Pension Fund will be capital related. This allows the City to
reclassify the fund to a Capital Projects Fund. This does not change how the City uses the Fund;
it only changes what section of the CAFR it is presented in.
The second change is related to fund balance commitments. To meet the Special Revenue Fund
definition, a fund must have “specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to
expenditure for specified purposes”. This requires the Council to adopt a resolution
“committing” specific revenues to each of the special revenue funds prior to the end of the year.
This resolution will be presented to Council on December 20th. Attachment #1 gives the
anticipated fund balance classifications for each Governmental Fund. The Special Revenue
Funds are highlighted, and the commitments that will be included in the resolution are italicized.
This document will change as we go through the audit process and determine other revenues that
fall under a specific category. The commitments made by the Council cannot change without
Council taking similar action to remove them.
The final change of note is related to the City’s Fund Balance Policies originally adopted on
October 27, 2008. The Fund Balance Policies need to be revised to authorize the City Manager
and/or Controller to assign fund balance to reflect the City’s intended use of funds. This does
not change the authority to actually spend resources, but to assign resources for a presentation
standpoint only. The Fund Balance Policies also need to include how the City intends to use its
resources when multiple categories of fund balance are available. The revised Fund Balance
Policies are included as attachment #2. There have been several minor changes made to reflect
the new terminology used in GASB 54 and to reflect how funds are currently being used. Again,
the revised policy does not change how the City conducts business or the General Fund reserve.
Changes to the policies have been highlighted in the attachment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
Detail provided in this report.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 3
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Resolution
Fund Balance Classifications
Fund Balance Policies
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.4f) Page 4
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION COMMITTING SPECIFIC REVENUE SOURCES
IN SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Statement #54 definition
of special revenue funds states that special revenue funds are used to account for and report the
proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditures for
specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects; and,
WHEREAS, the term “proceeds of specific revenue sources” establishes that one or
more specific restricted or committed revenues should be the foundation for a special revenue
fund and comprise a substantial portion of the fund’s revenues; and,
WHEREAS, investment earnings and transfers from other funds do not meet the
definition of a specific revenue source; and,
WHEREAS, council action is required to formalize the commitment of the specific
revenue sources to specified purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that effective December 31, 2010, the specific revenue source of each special revenue fund
and the specific purposes for which they are committed are as follows:
Fund Specific Revenue Sources Committed For
Park and Recreation Tax Levy Recreation Programs
Park and Recreation Charges for Services Recreation Programs
Housing Rehab Private Activity Revenue Bond Fees Continued Investment in Housing
Cable TV Cable franchise Fees Cable TV Programming
Special Service Districts Special Assessments Special Service District Operations
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
FundCategoryCommitted/Assigned For:General FundE-911 MoneyRestrictedInventoryNonspendablePrepaidsNonspendableDWI Enforcement- from Crime FundAssignedDWI EnforcementSPECIAL REVENUE FUNDSPark & RecInventory NonspendableSummer Playground Progaram RestrictedProperty TaxesCommittedRecreation ProgramsCharges for ServicesCommittedRecreation ProgramsRemainder Assigned Recreation ProgramsHousing RehabLoans Rec-noncurrent NonspendableRevenues from Rev Bond FeesCommittedPreventing deterioration of mult-unit housingRemainder Assigned Preventing deterioration of mult-unit housingCable TVFranchise FeesCommittedCable TV ProgrammingTime Warner Capital Grant Restricted CapitalRemainder Assigned Cable TV ProgrammingCommunity DevelopmentCDBG Funds RestrictedRemainder Assigned Community DevelopmentSpecial Service DistrictsSpecial AssessmentsCommittedSpecial Service Dist OperationsRemainderAssignedSpecial Service Dist OperationsCity of St. Louis ParkGASB 54 ImplementaionFund Balance ClassificationsFYE 2010City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation Page 5
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDSPolice & Fire PensionsRefund of overpayment for P&F Pension RestrictedPermanent Improvement RevolvingSpecial AssessmentsAssigned/Restricted Capital Improvements benefiting individual property ownersRemainderAssignedCapital Improvements benefiting individual property ownersStreets Captial ProjectsMSA RestrictedRemainderAssignedStreet ConstructionDevelopment EDAParking Lot RentAssignedRedevelopment EffortsRemainderAssignedRedevelopment EffortsRedevelopment DistrictTax IncrementsRestrictedHRA LevyRestrictedRemainderAssignedTax Increment FinancingFire Station BondsBondsRestrictedConstruction of two new fire stationsRemainderAssignedConstruction of two new fire stationsPark Improvement FundProperty TaxesAssignedSchool Dist ContributionsRestrictedPark Dedication FeesRestrictedRemainderAssignedDevelopment of ParksPavement Management FundProperty TaxesAssignedStreet RehabilitationFranchise FeesAssignedStreet RehabilitationRemainderAssignedStreet RehabilitationDEBT SERVICE FUNDSRestricted City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation Page 6
St. Louis Park Fund Balance Policy 1
City of St. Louis Park
Fund/Cash Balance Policies
December 20, 2010
The purpose of the fund balance policies is to establish appropriate fund balance levels for each
fund that is primarily supported by property tax revenues or user fees. These policies will ensure
that adequate resources are available to meet cash flow needs for carrying out the regular
operations of the City, as well as to meet the fund balance requirements identified in the City’s
Long Range financial Management Plan. The funds that will be addressed in this policy are:
General Fund, Parks & Recreation, Park Improvement, Pavement Management, and Enterprise
Funds.
The City Council authorizes the Controller and/or City Manager to assign fund balance that
reflects the City’s intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources
are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use
unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is
the City’s policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned.
These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise Funds.
I. General Fund
The General Fund is established to account for all revenues and expenditures which are
not required to be accounted for in other funds. Revenue sources include property taxes,
license and permit fees, fines and forfeits, service charges, intergovernmental revenues,
investment interest earnings, and transfers. The General Fund’s resources finance a wide
range of functions including the operations of general government, public safety, and
public works.
The City will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the General Fund in the
range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a significant
source of revenue in the General Fund comes from property taxes, maintaining a fund
balance that is equal to at least five months of operating expenditures ensures that
sufficient resources are available to fund basic City functions between property tax
settlements. This range is in conformance with guidance from the Office of the State
Auditor (OSA). Amounts that exceed 40% may be transferred out to other funds. An
assignment or restriction of fund balance may be used to offset revenues earned in one
year where substantial services are required to be performed in the next fiscal period
II. Parks & Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Fund is a Special Revenue Fund that provides for both passive
and active recreational activities throughout the community. It receives the majority of
its funding from property taxes and user fees which finance specific activities. These
activities are separated into several divisions: Organized Recreation, Park Maintenance,
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
Page 7
St. Louis Park Fund Balance Policy 2
Environment, Westwood Nature Center, Recreation Center and Vehicle Maintenance.
Fees for programs within these divisions are reviewed each year to determine the
appropriate amount of revenue to offset the costs and yet keep the program affordable for
participants. In some cases, the fee charged is either more market driven or may be based
on ability or willingness to pay, which will set the fees above or below the direct costs of
running an individual program.
The City will strive to maintain a fund balance in the Parks and Recreation Fund in the
range of 10-25% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. This lower percentage
is deemed adequate since many of the program revenues are received earlier in the year
than property tax settlements. Amounts that exceed 15% may be transferred out to other
funds.
III. Park Improvement Fund
The Park Improvement Fund pays for land, buildings, and infrastructure for the parks
within the city. Property taxes and park dedication fees make up the majority of the
revenues for this fund.
The City will strive to maintain a fund balance in the Park Improvement Fund in an
amount sufficient to support the ongoing capital expenditures planned in the CIP and in
congruence with the Long Range Financial Management Plan.
IV. Pavement Management Fund
The Pavement Management Fund is used to account for the financing of street
rehabilitation projects. Revenue sources are provided mainly through franchise fees and
property taxes. Street projects are programmed into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
and are generally planned years in advance.
The City will strive to maintain the fund balance in the Pavement Management Fund in
an amount sufficient to support the ongoing capital expenditures planned in the CIP and
in congruence with the Long Range Financial Management Plan.
V. Enterprise Funds
These funds were established to account for the operation of Water, Sewer, Solid Waste,
and Storm Water operations which are designed to be self-supporting from user charges.
a. Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of water services to the customers of
the City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection.
This fund is financed predominantly through user charges.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
Page 8
St. Louis Park Fund Balance Policy 3
The City will strive to maintain a cash balance in the Water Utility Fund in the range
of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a significant source
of revenue in the Water Utility Fund comes from user charges, maintaining a cash
balance that is equal to at least 35-50% of the subsequent year’s expenditures ensures
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic City functions between receipts of
user charges. In addition, due to the mature water infrastructure within the City, a
higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to address any potential issues.
b. Sewer Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of sewer services to the customers of
the City. All activities necessary to provide this utility to the customers are
administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed
predominantly through user charges.
The City will strive to maintain a cash balance in the Sewer Utility Fund in the range
of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a significant source
of revenue in the Sewer Utility Fund comes from user charges, maintaining a cash
balance that is equal to at least 35-50% of the subsequent year’s expenditures ensures
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic City functions between receipts of
user charges. In addition, due to the age of sewer infrastructure within the City, a
higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to address any potential issues.
c. Solid Waste Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of solid waste services to the
customers of the City related to collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste.
This fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain a cash balance in the Solid Waste Utility Fund in the
range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to less
volatility, a lesser cash balance percentage is justifiable. This will ensure that
sufficient resources are available to fund basic Solid Waste activities.
d. Storm Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of storm water to the customers of the
City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This
fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain a cash balance in the Storm Water Utility Fund in the
range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to less
volatility, a lesser cash balance percentage is justifiable. This will ensure that
sufficient resources are available to fund basic Storm Water activities.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54 Implementation
Page 9
Meeting Date: December 20, 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:
Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Fund Closings, and Interfund Loans.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers and fund closings.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving interfund loans.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Fund Equity Transfers
Does the Council concur with Staff’s recommendation on the level of fund balance within the
General Fund after the transfer of dollars to the Park Improvement Fund, Capital Replacement
Fund, and the Employee Flexible Spending Fund as per the General Fund Balance policy?
Fund Closings
Does Council concur with the Staff recommendation to close certain funds thereby maintaining
as few funds as legally required and necessary for sound business practices?
Inter-fund Loans
Does the Council concur with authorizing interfund loans from the Development Fund to certain
tax increment districts?
BACKGROUND:
Equity Transfers
As of December 31, 2009, the fund balance in the General Fund, excluding the E-911 funds
which are restricted in the way that they can be used, was $11,272,776. This unreserved fund
balance was equal to 48.65% of the 2010 budgeted expenditures. The City’s Fund Balance
Policy states that we will strive to maintain a fund balance in the General Fund that is within a
range of 35% to 50% of the following year’s budgeted expenditures, and that any amount greater
than 40% can be transferred to other funds. The City’s policy follows the Office of the State
Auditor’s recommended fund balance guidelines.
At the end of 2010, Staff anticipates that the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund will
increase to approximately $12.2 million. The General Fund expenditure budget for 2011, as
presented at the December 6, 2010, Truth-in-Taxation meeting, totals $23,283,787. As a result,
the projected end of the year fund balance within the General Fund would be approximately 52 -
53% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Therefore, it is recommend that an equity
transfer from the General Fund in 2010 of $1.8 million occur, with $550,000 transferred to the
Park Improvement Fund, $250,000 transferred to the Capital Replacement Fund, and $1.0
million transferred to the Employee Flexible Spending Fund. All of these funds have
sustainability challenges, and the infusion of these dollars will help the funds in achieving long
term sustainability. These transfers represent a spend down of reserves, and there continues to
be other funds, such as Cable TV, Street Capital Projects, and Uninsured Loss that have long
term funding challenges that will need to be addressed in the future.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4g) Page 2
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Fund Closings, and Interfund Loans
As a result of these recommendations, the fund balance within the General Fund would be
projected to be in a range of 44% - 46% of the proposed 2011 expenditures, depending on fiscal
year 2010 final year end results. A more detailed explanation of the recommended transfers
follows:
Park Improvement Fund – Transfer in of $550,000:
This fund provides for the financing of land acquisitions and development for park purposes.
Projects include upgrading of City park facilities, improvements to fields, courts, and trails, and
tree replacements. In discussing the Long Range Financial Management Plan at the October 25,
2010 Study Session, the Park Improvement Fund was identified as a fund that could begin to run
a deficit in 2019 without increased revenues. By directing $550,000 of the General Fund equity
transfer to the Park Improvement Fund, it is projected that the fund should be sustainable through
2020.
Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer in of $250,000:
This purpose of this fund is for the replacement or upgrades of the City’s equipment, vehicles,
computers, and municipal facilities. Staff has worked through a significant analysis of this fund
in 2010 to try to resolve future funding challenges. With a transfer of $250,000 from the General
Fund, the Capital Replacement Fund is projected to have a positive cash balance of $535,000 in
2020, bringing it closer to long term sustainability.
Employee Flexible Spending Fund – Transfer in of $1.0 million:
The Employee Flexible Spending Fund covers expenses such as workers compensation, tuition
reimbursement, unemployment, and other employee benefits. This fund does not have a
dedicated funding source, therefore, a temporary solution for this fund has been a transfer from
the General Fund. As a result, the fund has a current deficit which will continue to grow without
a permanent long term funding source. The most recent transfers to this fund have been
$200,000 in 2005, $350,000 in 2007, and $300,000 in 2009. In order to accomplish the goal of
longer term sustainability in this fund, a transfer of $1.0 million is recommended from the
General Fund, but this will not solve the funding challenges and continued analysis will need to
occur.
Staff will review the fund balance in the General Fund again near the end of 2011 and each year
going forward to determine if additional equity transfers can be made.
Fund Closings
At the end of each year, Staff determines if there are any funds which are no longer necessary
and should be closed.
In 2010, the 2003A General Obligation Bonds were refunded, which allows this debt service
fund to be recommended for closure.
Staff is recommending that the City Council take formal action to close the following fund:
Fund Number Name
3450 2003A GO Bonds
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4g) Page 3
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Fund Closings, and Interfund Loans
Interfund Loans
In the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the Elmwood TIF District has been identified as a
funding source for several street capital projects, including the Wooddale Avenue and Highway
7 Interchange and West 36th St. Streetscape. While the project costs have been incurred, there
isn’t sufficient increment generated in the district to fund the City’s portion of the costs at this
time. In order to provide a temporary funding source for the City’s obligation in these projects
until additional increment is received, an interfund loan is necessary from the Development Fund
to the Elmwood TIF District. Staff is recommending that an interfund loan resolution be adopted
in the amount of $5 million from the Development Fund to the Elmwood TIF District. The
Development Fund will have sufficient cash available to cover the project costs, and the loan will
be repaid with 4% interest as tax increment is generated in the coming years.
The Ellipse TIF District was created in 2009. New districts typically have expenses for
consultant fees, public notice publication costs, and other administrative expenses that occur
prior to the receipt of any increment. Staff is recommending that an interfund loan resolution be
adopted in the amount of $10,000 from the Development Fund to the Ellipse TIF District. The
Development Fund will have sufficient cash available to cover these administrative expenses,
and the loan will be repaid with 4% interest as future tax increment is generated.
Fund Potential Deficit Maximum Loan
Elmwood TIF District $4,000,000 $5,000,000
Ellipse TIF District $ 5,000 $ 10,000
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions recommended will allow the General Fund to retain a healthy fund balance within
our fund balance policy requirements, and direct resources to other funds where there are
funding challenges. The actions will also provide for interfund loans until sufficient increment is
generated to fund administrative expenses and capital improvement needs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings
Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loans
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4g) Page 4
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Fund Closings, and Interfund Loans
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS
AND FUND CLOSINGS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on transfers from the General Fund for their
continued operation; and
WHEREAS, certain funds are no longer necessary to the operation of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following sums of money
from the General Fund to the designated funds as shown.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
General Fund Park Improvement Fund $ 550,000
General Fund Capital Replacement Fund $ 250,000
General Fund Employee Flexible Spending $ 1,000,000
2. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to close the following funds as shown.
Fund Number Name
3450 2003A GO Bonds
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4g) Page 5
Subject: Approve Fund Equity Transfers, Fund Closings, and Interfund Loans
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOANS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds may at times run a short term deficit and require an
interfund loan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council:
1. The following interfund loans are approved from the Development Fund as needed:
Fund Maximum Loan
Elmwood TIF District $ 5,000,000
Ellipse TIF District $ 10,000
2. Such loans are to be repaid with 4% interest when sufficient resources are
available.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting
TITLE:
Approve Contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for Auditing Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a one year contract with three option years with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD
for auditing services.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with the contract for auditing services with HLB Tautges
Redpath, LTD?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed staff on October 25 to request proposals for auditing services for fiscal
year end 2010 with three option years. In early November, staff sent out a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for auditing services. We received seven proposals, all from very reputable CPA firms.
After consideration of the proposals, interviews, and reference calls, staff came to the conclusion
that HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD would provide the best overall service for the City. Staff from
HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD will be in attendance at the Special Study Session on December 20 to
answer any questions. Below is the dollar cost proposal submitted by HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD.
Service 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Financial Audit $40,000 $40,800 $41,700 $42,600 $165,100
CAFR Preparation 8,000 8,100 8,200 8,300 32,600
Single Audit 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 14,600
New Client Discount (6,500) (5,000) (3,500) (2,000) (17,000)
Total $45,000 $47,500 $50,100 $52,700 $195,300
The Single Audit fee will only be assessed if the City is required to have a single audit for that
year. A single audit is required if the City expends $500,000 or more of Federal assistance. The
City had a single audit in 2009, and is required to have one in 2010, due to the ARRA funding
received for the Hwy 7 and Wooddale project. The City’s 2009 audit costs were $51,000 for the
same services, including Single Audit fees.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION
The expense for the 2011 audit is included in the budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Authorize Bank Signatories and Opening of Money Market Account.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing bank signatories and opening of money market account.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the Council concur with the list of bank signatories for each of the Citizens Independent
Bank accounts?
Does the Council concur with opening a new money market account at Citizens Independent
Bank?
BACKGROUND:
Checking Accounts
The City currently has three checking accounts at Citizens Independent Bank in St. Louis Park.
The Vendor Checking Account has the largest volume of transactions and is used for all City
vendor payments. The Payroll Checking Account is used solely for payroll purposes. Only a
very small volume of checks are written from this account, as all regular City employees are paid
via direct deposit. The EDA Checking Account is used for EDA vendor payments, and this
account also has a very small volume of checks written.
Staff is in the process of updating bank signature cards and banking resolutions for all checking
accounts. Based on new and more strict banking requirements, City Council approval by
resolution and copies of minutes are needed. The following signatories are recommended for
each account:
City Vendor Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Nancy Gohman** Deputy City Mgr/HR Director
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer/primary authority
**Secondary authority
Payroll Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Nancy Gohman** Deputy City Mgr/HR Director
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer/primary authority
**Secondary authority
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4i) Page 2
Subject: Authorize Bank Signatories and Opening of Money Market Account
EDA Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* Executive Director
Phil Finkelstein* EDA President
Brian Swanson** Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer as required by EDA Bylaws
**Secondary authority
Staff will request Council authorization at any point in time when a signer needs to be added or
removed from an account via resolution to ensure inclusion in minutes to meet the new banking
requirements.
Money Market Account
All three of the checking accounts noted above are non-interest bearing accounts. Staff follows
the objectives of the City Investment Policy by striving to maximize interest earnings by
maintaining a minimal daily balance in each checking account and transferring any available
cash to a money market fund outside of Citizens Bank. Currently, the two money market options
the City has for investing available cash yield between .02% and .15%. In researching other
alternatives, Staff met with Citizens Independent Bank to discuss short term investment options.
Citizens Bank offers a Premier Money Market that currently yields .65% on balances of $1
million or more. Staff recommends that the City open a Premier Money Market account at
Citizens Independent Bank to take advantage of the increased interest earnings potential while
adhering to the objects of the City’s Investment Policy.
There will be no check writing associated with this new money market account. Transfers will
be allowed both to and from the other City and EDA checking accounts at Citizens in order to
move funds efficiently when necessary with no fees. External wires will also be allowed to and
from this money market account in order to facilitate other transactions such as purchasing
longer term securities or making debt service payments.
Staff recommends the following signatories on the new money market account:
Premier Money Market
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
Darla Monson** Senior Accountant
*Primary authority
**Secondary authority
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The actions recommended will ensure that the City is compliant with banking and audit
requirements by updating bank signatory information for all bank accounts. The new money
market fund adheres to all of the objectives of the City’s Investment Policy of safety, liquidity,
and yield.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4i) Page 3
Subject: Authorize Bank Signatories and Opening of Money Market Account
VISION CONSIDERATION:
No applicable
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4i) Page 4
Subject: Authorize Bank Signatories and Opening of Money Market Account
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BANK SIGNATORIES AND
OPENING OF MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has accounts at Citizens Independent Bank; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to update the current bank signatories; and
WHEREAS, the addition of a new money market account would provide a sound
investment option for investing short-term cash;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. Approval is hereby given to authorize the following bank signatories on the Citizens
Independent Bank Accounts.
City Vendor Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Nancy Gohman** Deputy City Mgr/HR Director
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer/primary authority
**Secondary authority
Payroll Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Nancy Gohman** Deputy City Mgr/HR Director
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer/primary authority
**Secondary authority
EDA Checking Account
Thomas Harmening* Executive Director
Phil Finkelstein* EDA President
Brian Swanson** Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
*Check signer as required by EDA Bylaws
**Secondary authority
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4i) Page 5
Subject: Authorize Bank Signatories and Opening of Money Market Account
2. Approval is hereby given to authorize the Controller to open a Premier Money
Market at Citizens Independent Bank with the following bank signatories.
Premier Money Market
Thomas Harmening* City Manager
Brian Swanson* Controller
Steven Heintz** Finance Supervisor
Darla Monson** Senior Accountant
*Primary authority
**Secondary authority
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4j
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard - P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0191.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Erling Almlie, owner of the single family residence at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard has requested the
City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for her home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer
service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has
been determined to be $4,163.45.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
5912 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 09-117-21-34-0191
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 5912 Minnetonka Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $4,163.45.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4k
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 15, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person,
Carol Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Ford
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal
1. Joint Meeting with the City Council
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal said the date for a joint meeting is September
27th, and she reviewed the topics with the Commission. The topics include: (1) Jim McComb of
the McComb Group presenting the results of the Commercial Corridor Study, which looked at
the market situation of 10 commercial nodes and corridors identified in the Comprehensive Plan;
(2) Discuss ideas for the proposed “Business Park” zoning district; and (3) Other zoning items.
She noted the meeting would be at the remodeled and expanded Municipal Service Center
(MSC) and Commissioners are welcome to participate in the tour prior to the meeting.
2. Subdivision at 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard
Planner Adam Fulton shared a proposed subdivision off of Minnetonka Boulevard with the
Commissioners. The subdivision will be the subject of a public hearing at the next Planning
Commission meeting. The proposed preliminary plat meets all of the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance. A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for September 28th.
3. Freight Rail Study
Commissioners Carper and Johnston-Madison discussed the MNS Freight Rail Study. The
meetings held to date of the PMT were discussed. Commissioners discussed ideas to make it
more safe, move train traffic through without parking or storing rail cars and buffer zones. A
discussion of the role of the Planning Commission ensued; some members thought the
Commission should make a statement and others noted that it is the Commission’s role to be
advisory to the City Council. Additional mitigation ideas were discussed.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4k) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of September 15, 2010
4. Zoning Items
• Restaurant versus coffee shop
Discussion about if a coffee shop should be defined. How are the parking needs different?
• Setbacks for single family homes
Should stacking setbacks vary by type of drive-through use (i.e. drug store, bank, fast food)?
• Mixed use definition
How should Mixed-use be defined? Is a “majority” of the ground floor enough?
• Cluster housing
Commissioner Robertson handed out 3 drawings of different kinds of homes. He noted that
“cluster” in his mind was the ability to be flexible with a single family subdivision arrangement
(#3 on the drawing). Commissioners and staff noted the term “cluster” may need to be changed.
• Transit reduction in parking
The reduction allowances in the code were noted. The definition of “superior” transit, as
specified in the MX district, needs to be clarified.
• PUD
Staff will be reviewing the PUD ordinance for the modifications allowed and the legal structure
of it.
• Wetlands
Can they be counted toward the lot area and for density purposes? Planners will discuss with
engineering staff.
• Building height
Commissioner Robertson asked if the height limit is problematic for roof access. Planners noted
they would discuss with the building inspections department.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4l
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 6, 2010--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford (youth member), Claudia Johnston-
Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl
Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 18, 2010
Commissioner Kramer noted he should be shown as present in the minutes of August 18,
2010.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes of August
18, 2010 as amended.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
3. Hearings
A. Preliminary Plat – Eldridge 1st Addition
Location: 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: AKARE Companies, LLC (Rob Eldridge)
Case No.: 10-27-S
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report and noted this was for approval of a
preliminary plat only, to create five new lots to be called Cobblecrest Court. Some issues
included this being a new public street versus a private street with a cul-de-sac. There is a
five foot wide sidewalk proposed. Hennepin County had some concerns about the site
distance, but the City Engineer felt it met the requirements. Mr. Fulton stated that tree
preservation was a critical issue for this lot and buckthorn and grape vines would be
removed. The applicant was proposing to replace trees and 56 are required. The
developer has indicated willingness to have neighborhood involvement in developing the
final landscape plan. Storm water management issues were taken into consideration with
installation of a pond and drainage swale.
Commissioner Robertson referred to a study session discussion on cluster housing and
asked if the possibility of cluster housing had been discussed with the applicant. He said
there are interesting lot shapes and that could potentially change screening and the road
location or alter the plan.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
Mr. Fulton replied a policy decision was made to remove cluster housing from the R-1
Zoning District in 2006, so that possibility was not discussed. He added that the proposed
lot shapes are typical of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Fulton discussed pad sites.
Mr. Fulton stated that this is a preliminary plat only, not review for a building permit or
specific house review or design. He added that the applicant was the builder of two
houses in the subdivision across the street and has indicated that the proposed houses will
be similar to those houses.
Commissioner Carper asked if there is any requirement to do a sidewalk on the northern
portion adjacent to Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mr. Fulton replied that there is already a trail in that location.
Commissioner Carper asked about sidewalk on the other side of the cul-de-sac adjacent
to the swale.
Mr. Fulton indicated the requirement doesn’t extend to that area because those houses
front on Cavell Ave. S. and have access to that street.
Commissioner Carper asked how the lot sizes compared to the adjacent existing homes
and surrounding blocks.
Mr. Fulton replied this had come up in the neighborhood meeting. The R-1 study that was
completed by the Planning Commission looked at the Cobblecrest neighborhood and
other neighborhoods. There are a number of larger lots. The adjacent lots to the proposed
subdivision are generally 10-13,000 square ft. lots and they are unusually shaped.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the street width from the cul-de-sac and asked where
parking would be allowed.
Mr. Fulton said the subdivision ordinance requires a 29 ft. street width. The Fire Marshall
will make the final determination as to which side parking will be allowed.
Commissioner Kramer asked about options regarding narrowness and street width.
Mr. Fulton said the applicant had not requested a variance to the subdivision ordinance
requirement. Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added a street could
possibly be about 6-8 feet narrower.
Rob Eldridge, applicant, Ridge Creek Custom Homes, provided background on the
company and the development.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Bill Streetar, 3010 Cavell, stated his home is currently surrounded by asphalt and
concrete on two sides and with this development it would be completely surrounded on
three sides. He asked if the drainage swale would run on the east side of the street.
Mr. Fulton replied it would be an above-ground drainage swale and would not drain
anywhere but to Minnetonka Blvd. where it would travel into Cobblecrest Lake.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
Mr. Streetar stated from his property line to the curb of the street is only ten feet. He said
he felt that was untenable for a residence. He stated he lived on this property for 46 ½
years and had seen many changes. In 1973 the grade change took away two and a half
feet of his street. He believed there were already a lot of issues including noise pollution
from Minnetonka Blvd, heavy truck traffic, motorcycles, trespassing from the trail across
his lot, and trash from the bus stop. They have to live with that. Mr. Streetar said the
proposed development would bring a lot of light pollution from the street and it would be
20 feet from his back bedroom. He said he didn’t want to live in a cave. He said he was
also concerned about the saleability of his house as the development would lower his
home value. He said his home was his nest egg. Mr. Streetar stated he would like a visual
barrier from the development, some kind of tasteful fence.
Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Streetar if the street were to be pushed further to the
west, what distance would be workable?
Mr. Streetar replied there were ideas from the neighborhood that could make this more
neighborhood friendly. Having an entrance off of Cavell or Decatur would eliminate the
intersection directly with Minnetonka Blvd., which would make more sense for safety
and traffic.
Diane Harrison, 3021 Decatur, said she wanted to present alternatives to the architect’s
plan. She said the architect didn’t plan well putting the street where they did, saying that
no one in their right mind would put cement on three sides of someone’s land. It wasn’t
fair. There are other options. The original designer of the neighborhood made the lots
long and thin and the homes were put to the back side of the lots. She suggested one of
the options that could have been offered was for the neighbors to buy more land.
Another option would be to bring the road in from Decatur Av. and turn it up. They could
flip it to put the big houses to the north side of the lot and the smaller houses toward the
south side of the lot. There would be no access from Minnetonka Blvd. and no problems
from a poor turn area and cause for accidents. They could still have the turnaround and
the builder could buy a small piece of the neighbor’s lot and put in a fence, adding more
trees and shrubbery. Because it would be a new house with good sound insulation it
would give Mr. Streetar land behind his home. Ms. Harrison said she didn’t feel the plan
presented was the best option for the neighborhood.
Kent Bowker, 3031 Decatur, stated his initial shock about the proposal had subsided. He
said about nine years ago when he bought his house, he didn’t think the proposed
subdivision was a buildable spot. He bought his house because of the existing
environment. Mr. Bowker said in his opinion, as a real estate agent, Bill Streetar’s and
Jeremy Gustafson’s houses clearly will lose value. He said all six of the homes will lose
value because they will be losing their wooded oasis. The new homes will be big two-
story homes, lots of trees will be removed, and it will not be the same environment. Mr.
Bowker stated he didn’t see how they could allow a road to go in behind those homes.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Bowker if he had any problems with the proposal of a
new roadway along the south side of his house.
Mr. Bowker replied it was alright because his garage was located there and he had a large
side yard.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
Mike Pacello, 3060 Cavell, read a letter from Gail and Michael Mooers, 8920 W. 31st St,
who were unable to attend the meeting. The Mooers’ concerns regarded: the square
footage of the homes would look out of place, the homes were too big for the
neighborhood; the setback from the existing homes was too narrow which would impact
privacy, security and saleability; the removal of so many mature trees had a huge
environmental impact on the neighborhood; and five homes were too many for the land
space available. The Mooers stated they were adamantly opposed to putting five homes
into that space and tired of subdivisions having to do with the bottom line and more tax
base for the city. They requested that the Commission not pass the proposal as it stood.
Mr. Pacello asked when all this building will stop. He commented that space is good.
The neighborhood enjoys large lots and nice houses.
Briana Erickson, 3011 Decatur, quoted Mayor Jacobs from the St. Louis Park Community
Guide, “It is a place where people live starting out raising families or settling in for
retirement. A community of choice for a lifetime. Neighbors know each other and
residents have real input into decisions affecting the community.” Ms. Erickson said this
was a prime of example of what the neighborhood should have, and they should have a
say. She said the development’s impact on residential streets needed to be minimized.
The extra traffic and parking would place an unacceptable burden on the rest of the
neighborhood. The new homes could be a lower scale in keeping with the character of
the community. Their homes are about half the size and one half to one-third the price of
the proposed homes. These are mansions going up in their back yard and it altered the
neighborhood feel. There would also be an environmental impact removing trees and
green space. Ms. Erickson stated that the new properties could potentially drive up their
property taxes and would make the area unaffordable. She concluded by saying allowing
this to take place was setting a dangerous precedence.
Jeremy Gustafson, 3020 Cavell, stated his largest concern was preserving a private
backyard for his kids. Having a street put in within ten feet of their property line would
be only 6-7 steps to the street. He said he appreciated the developer’s offer to build a
fence.
Mark McDonnell, 2939 Cavell, stated he moved from his first house on Cavell to one of
the new houses across the street. They were starting their family and their first house was
not big enough. They were looking to leave the city, but they liked living here and they
liked the school district. Mr. Eldridge was the builder of their new home. Mr.
McDonnell said they couldn’t be happier with their new home and assumed the new
houses would be similar to it. Mr. McDonnell said Mr. Eldridge would probably be able
to work with the residents better than any builder he had come into contact with.
James Campbell, 8806 Minnetonka, asked how runoff into Cobblecrest Lake would
affect the lake.
Mr. Fulton replied that runoff currently goes to Cobblecrest Lake and the new
development wouldn’t change the current conditions. The applicant is required to not
release any additional water above and beyond what the site currently releases. He
explained that all of the water from Cavell and Decatur streets flows to the north toward
Cobblecrest Lake. It then outlets to a man-made structure that regulates the water level
of the lake and then it outlets to Minnehaha Creek.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
An email from Jo Colleran, 8810 Minnetonka Blvd., was distributed to the Planning
Commission. Her comments included support of 5 lots versus 7 lots. She appreciated the
road alignment as proposed. If it was moved to the west, car lights as exiting onto Mtka.
Blvd. would point directly at her home. She said she appreciates the attempt to infiltrate
as much storm water runoff as possible. She suggested the roadway could be narrower to
allow for less storm water runoff. Ms. Colleran supported removal of buckthorn and
grape vine. She said she was concerned about how the final grading may impact the
critical root zone of some of the trees he proposes to save. Ms. Colleran stated she was
concerned about the view and landscaping. She said she spoke with the developer about
using native trees and shrubbery to create a layered woodland effect versus a berm with
evergreens. She provided details about how a rain garden on lot 1 could be planted with
native trees and shrubs in order to help accomplish an aesthetic woodland view.
Chair Person closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Carper noted one of the speakers brought up the concept of a fence to
separate the road from the homes to the east. He asked if that can be made a condition of
approval.
Chair Person asked if a berm would be workable.
Mr. Fulton replied there would be a slight berm at the corner of Minnetonka and the new
street. A berm was not possible on the east side of the new proposed street because that
was where the drainage swale was proposed to be located. Mr. Fulton stated that the
applicant has said he would be willing to put in a fence, but that his preference was not to
put in a fence because he didn’t feel a fence made good neighbors. If the neighbors felt it
was necessary, that condition would be perfectly acceptable.
Commissioner Morris said a fence would make good neighbors in this case and it was
compelling for the safety of the children. The dry pond could fill with water a few times
a year and children could be drawn to it. He said he would advocate that a fence would
be a good visual separation from the roadway for the property owners on the east and
would also be good for safety.
Commissioner Kramer asked how close someone could put the back of their house to the
lot line.
Mr. Fulton replied the rear yard setback is 25 feet for the R-1 district.
Commissioner Kramer asked why houses along Cavell would be forced into a minimum
lot backyard. He asked why the street is so far to the east and why couldn’t it be moved
to the west, making the backyards of the new developments smaller.
Mr. Fulton replied that the first proposal they reviewed for this was 7 lots with a cul-de-
sac that came down right in the middle. It looked like it conformed to the Zoning Code.
The developer has stated by putting a road in the proposed location, it allows them to
accomplish a development at a slightly lower density while meeting the City’s
requirements for storm water and road regulations. He added that was not to say the road
couldn’t be moved.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
Commissioner Robertson said the proposal will make Cavell lots become thru-lots.
Typically the 25-ft rear yard setback was a rear yard to a rear yard setting. The proposal
was an odd situation. Cars would be too close to the backyards and he was not
comfortable with the street being as far to the east as it was. Problems could be avoided
with more buffer, width and addition of a fence. He said there had already been a lot of
public input on this site through the zoning process and through the Comprehensive Plan.
It could be developed more intensely. The R-1 district can have 9,000 sq. ft. lots. The
development meets the needs for more large single family homes. Commissioner
Robertson stated it was a good development scale-wise. He said he appreciated that it
was for five houses instead of seven houses. He said the public street needed to be
pushed further from the backyards of the houses on Cavell. He commented that residents
say this would lower the value of their homes, but they don’t have control on the other
side of their property line. The street encroaches too much on people’s private backyards.
He suggested it can be rearranged and not lose anything in the process.
Chair Person asked about street light locations.
Mr. Fulton responded that street light locations had not been determined. The conditions
and locations would be reviewed by the Police Department.
Commissioner Robertson asked the developer to comment on flipping the street location.
Rob Eldridge, applicant, stated when they studied the site with their engineers they
looked at different road layouts. It was generally a flat lot but not a flat neighborhood.
The idea of flipping the road to go through Mr. Bowker’s area would require them to
build it up eight feet, which would take out everything in the woods in the back side of
the property. He explained when they looked at this, the road on the east side worked out
best because if they went to the other side to meet City standards they would have to do
more grading. This could be discussed as part of the final plat. He said they tried to
entertain other ideas and didn’t know that Mr. Bowker's land was available to do this.
Chair Person asked about the height of the foundations above the new street.
Mr. Eldridge was unsure what the foundations were for the new street, but the
foundations to his yard were about two-feet higher. It was a significant amount. They
were open to the idea of putting a fence down that side. He said at one point he hoped to
do a private road, making the road smaller and keeping it 15-20 feet from the side yard.
He said when you start putting in a 50-foot wide road and try holding it off another 10-15
feet, it would shove the houses onto the other properties and affect both sides of the
neighborhood. He liked the idea of one-sided parking and getting rid of eight feet of
asphalt. It would probably change the drainage issues and give them other ideas to
explore. Mr. Eldridge concluded by saying this is why they were doing the preliminary
plat because there were issues to be worked out and discussed.
Commissioner Morris asked about Hennepin County and City Engineer comments on the
road configuration.
Mr. Fulton replied that Hennepin County had some questions about the layout. The City
Engineer, Scott Brink, believes it should be a public street and believed it was safe. He
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
did additional review as requested by Hennepin County. The county looks for 500 ft.
stopping distance visually in both directions and they found that to be present on both the
east and the west of the proposed road.
Commissioner Morris asked if the road location needed to be changed, or did it just need
to be tweaked. He said his concern was if they moved ahead with preliminary and found
out the road needed to be moved which changed the lot configuration, other options
might then be available. The Commission would only see it on the final plat at that point.
Mr. Fulton stated that the City Engineer did not believe the road location needed to be
changed.
Commissioner Morris noted that in flipping the roadway and the cul-de-sac around, the
cul-de-sac would be up against somebody’s backyard no matter how it is done. It won’t
fit in the middle. He asked if it is a private road, does that allow it to be a 25-foot road
with no parking.
Mr. Fulton responded the subdivision ordinance has specific standards for both public
and private streets. They could do a narrower private street. If the Planning Commission
were to recommend a variance from the subdivision ordinance standards for roadway
width, that would be something staff would need to review with the City Engineer and
the Fire Marshall to make sure that would be an acceptable street.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understood the residents’ concerns, but the
property owner had a right to redevelop the property. She said the developer had done a
good job in configuring the property. She said she wanted to move preliminary plat
forward with more discussion about the road and setbacks for the final plat.
Commissioner Kramer said he agreed the developer had the right to do what they had
proposed and it was consistent with the City vision. He said he was uncomfortable with
the proximity to the houses on Cavell. He would like to see the street moved to the west
by making it narrower. He didn’t like the idea of a fence rather than a view.
Ms. McMonigal indicated staff would look at that with the City Engineer. An additional
five feet would likely set the street 25 feet from the homes, which was the typical back
yard setback.
Commissioner Shapiro indicated they should keep it a public street, but shrink it 4-5 feet
from east to west and have one side street parking to move it further from the houses.
Ms. McMonigal noted staff would try to work with the City Engineer on the road issue
prior to going to the City Council with the preliminary plat. She was not sure how
quickly they would come back with the final plat.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the east curb line of the road could move to the
west. He also wanted to add discussions regarding a fence.
Commissioner Morris asked for further discussion on the lighting.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4l) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 2010
Andrew Ford, youth member, said he felt the residents had a valid concern that the
proposed house sizes didn’t fit in with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions recommended by staff, with an amendment that a
study be done on the road moving further to the west, with further discussion on
consideration of a fence and location of lighting.
Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion, and the motion as amended passed on a
vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Carper abstained).
4. Other Business
5. Communications
A. Ms. McMonigal noted there would be a study session meeting on October 20th to
discuss the Business Park Zoning District and Eliot School design guidelines.
B. Commissioner Robertson indicated he would like to follow up on the joint
meeting the Planning Commission had with City Council. He said the meeting
was good, but it did not accomplish what they set out to do when they requested a
meeting with the City Council. They received three presentations and there was
no dialogue between the two bodies. He said he wanted to reschedule another
business type meeting for more dialogue.
Ms. McMonigal stated there was a lot of information to cover which took a lot of
time. Staff will work on another meeting date.
C. Commissioners Carper and Johnston-Madison updated the Commission on the
PMT railroad meeting held on October 2nd. The next meeting will be on
November 9th. A joint meeting of the City Council and School Board will be held
on November 29th to go over the 2009 rail study. Commissioner Johnston-
Madison encouraged people to attend both meetings.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 20, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford,
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carol Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Sean Walther
1. Business Park Zoning District
• Section 36-232 Restrictions and performance standards; general provisions
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about restaurants and service. She asked if drive-through
uses are allowed. She said she liked the requirements for the proposed district.
Commissioner Robertson asked about loading docks. He suggested there may be a need to
create administrative approval to allow these kinds of things.
Commissioner Morris asked how many existing loading docks are non-conforming.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there is a survey of existing non-conformities.
Commissioner Carper suggested that item no. 8 (truck activity routes/pedestrian traffic) may
need to be modified regarding safety issues.
In reference to item no. 9b. (glare or heat), Commissioner Morris asked about the definition of
“intense.”
• Section 36-233 BP business park district
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about aesthetics. She said it would be good if that could
be strengthened with more explicit language about building exteriors, landscaping, green space
and boulevards.
There was a discussion about item (b) Permitted Uses and floor area ratio. Questions were raised
about why office FAR is restricted but hotel FAR is not restricted. It was suggested that
educational uses are not well defined and should be clarified in greater detail; such as colleges
and vo-tech. Why must educational uses be located on the ground floor? Commissioners asked
for more study on how the proposed 40 sq. ft. of outdoor area/student relates to DORA. Is 150
sq. ft. of outdoor area/adult necessary for the adult daycare use?
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4m) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 2010
2. Cluster Housing
Commissioner Robertson discussed the issue. He stated that removal of cluster housing from the
Zoning Ordinance was done to prevent townhomes. He said it may be a good idea to pursue
cluster housing in a different way. He said he would like to see a permitted density transfer, but
not off one lot. He spoke about better site design. It would be detached housing only.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what the category could be called, detached
townhouses? She said she would like staff to pursue the issue of cluster housing. It would work
in cases where there is not enough frontage.
Commissioner Robertson stated it would allow for more creative use of lots.
Commissioner Morris spoke about maximizing open space and concentrating on building space.
Commissioner Robertson said cluster housing should be permitted, perhaps with a CUP, and
with review from the Planning Commission and City. Commissioners discussed potential
conditions, including no attached townhomes, distance between units, and a DORA requirement.
Commissioner Robertson said when the City Council deleted the provision in the first place, they
did intend to come back and look at cluster housing in the future.
Commissioner Person asked for recent examples of subdivisions where this could have been
accomplished.
Commissioner Robertson stated it shouldn’t just be a two-lot split.
3. Eliot School Design Guidelines
Commissioner Robertson spoke about the task force and process, including neighborhood
meetings. He spoke about the design guidelines and the site. He noted that architectural style
will be very important to complement the neighborhood. He stated that senior housing would be
great for the site.
4. Southwest Transit Workshop
Commissioners Johnston-Madison, Morris, Person, and Robertson indicated they were interested
in attending the workshop.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4n
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 17, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Richard
Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Ford, Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Sean Walther
1. 6:00 p.m. Business Park Zoning District
Adam Fulton, Planner, introduced the item and explained that the review of the proposed
Business Park zoning district that took place at the October Study Session ended with uses that
were “permitted with conditions,” and that the remainder of the discussion included uses allowed
as Conditional Uses, PUD, Accessory Uses, and Dimensional Standards.
Commissioner Kramer noted that enclosed refuse handling for medical and dental laboratories
was not necessary, as other regulations require the use to be well managed anyway.
Commissioner Carper noted that it should be ensured that such uses have a low impact to the
environment.
The commissioners discussed the regulations for parking ramps and requested clarification on
how the regulations would apply to ramps depending on how the ramps were sited within a
parcel.
Commissioners Kramer and Robertson discussed the height regulations for structures in the BP
district, and requested that the minimum heights be increased to 55 feet and 110 feet to better
accommodate the typical size of structures based on current construction practices.
The commissioners discussed the concept of a minimum FAR and requested that it remain in the
future ordinance.
Commissioner Shapiro discussed the proposed setback regulations and requested that they be
clarified to allow for the construction of patios between rights-of-way and buildings in the future
zoning district.
Other discussion items regarded elevator penthouses, LRT station area planning and schedule,
and light industrial/low impact light industrial.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4n) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes of November 17, 2010
Mr. Fulton explained that the next step in the ordinance development process was to bring the
ordinance to the group of business and property owners within the district and discuss the
regulations with them. He stated that the meeting would probably occur sometime in December
or early January. After that, the ordinance would be brought back to the Planning Commission.
2. 7:00 p.m. Review of upcoming Fire Station applications
Sean Walther, Senior Planner, provided an update of the Fire Station application process.
Applications include a CUP for fill at each station, a Plat at Station #1, and a street vacation at
Station #1. Mr. Walther stated that it was likely that the applications would come before the
Planning Commission for review on December 15th.
3. 7:15 p.m. ULI Southwest LRT workshop recap
Commissioners discussed the recent ULI tour of the SW LRT line and the speakers following the
tour. Commissioner Robertson led the discussion and talked about future steps that the Planning
Commission might take to look at important issues surrounding the transit line.
4. 7:30 p.m. Additional Items
Commissioners Johnston-Madison and Carper discussed the status of the freight rail issue.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison raised several questions with Commissioner Shapiro about the
future School Board review of the freight rail studies.
5. 7:40 p.m. Adjourn
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4o
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 6, 2010 through December
17, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
240.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
240.00
7.35-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS32-DEGREES INC
114.25ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
106.90
436.00SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3RD LAIR SKATEPARK
436.00
227.37TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
227.37
31.95STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
31.95
87.72SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
87.72
1,353.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
1,353.00
2,330.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACZ LABORATORIES INC
2,330.00
43,259.16REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
4,542.50MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
47,801.66
117.55WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSAFFINITY PLUS FCU
117.55
100.00ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL BUILDINGSALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CH
100.00
149.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION
149.00
2,400.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A COST REIMBURSEMENTALLIED BLACKTOP
3,708.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,146.99CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
19,254.99
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 2
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
310.70PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
310.70
65.47POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
65.47
911.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
911.85
80.16FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
53.44GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
438.16PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
266.57PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
365.06ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
241.18VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
217.21WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
217.21SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
36.82STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,915.81
2,238,084.96CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIAMES CONSTRUCTION
2,238,084.96
1,360.73SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,360.73
102.50COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL REPAIRSANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
102.50
3,519.03FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
3,519.03
255.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
255.00
601.71BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
601.71
200.00SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT OTHERAPOGEE RETAIL LLC
200.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 3
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
763.70GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
828.30ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,592.00
25.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
25.00
970.00ICE RESURFACER BUILDING MTCE SERVICEARENA SERVICES & PRODUCTS
970.00
2,559.87PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
2,559.87
31.99COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
31.99
186.25VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEATOMIC RECYCLING
186.25
490.89PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
244.60GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
735.49
95.54CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTAVI SYSTEMS INC
95.54
350.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBACHMAN, SHIRLEY
350.00
39.91FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBANKER'S EQUIPMENT SERVICE INC
39.91
156.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
156.00
5,329.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARR ENGINEERING CO
9,148.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
14,477.10
141.61BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBARTLEY SALES CO
924.47PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,066.08
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 4
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBARTMANN, KARI
5,000.00
21.36SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSBATTERIES PLUS
31.42BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
115.40WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
168.18
700.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGBCA/TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
700.00
44,214.26PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
44,214.26
600.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEDARD, CHRISCELL
600.00
90.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGS
1,490.00
46,875.00ESCROWSGENERALBENILDE-ST MARGARET'S SCHOOL
46,875.00
80.00PARK PAVILIONS PROGRAM REVENUEBENSON, AMY
80.00
101.57WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBERRES, JOHN
101.57
197.57PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
197.57
116.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
116.00
45,780.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC
45,780.00
439.23NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBJORGAARD, DEB
439.23
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 5
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
128.64TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEBORRE, ROBERT
128.64
725.83POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
725.83
666.57PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
666.57
160.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBRAUCH, CLARE
160.50
275.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,554.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES
27,021.51GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
192.00CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
892.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
29,934.51
3,190.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
3,190.00
793.69PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
793.69
80.37POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBUDGET SIGN & GRAPHICS
2.50POLICE G & A POSTAGE
82.87
146.57WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBURBANK, SUSAN
146.57
140.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEC&E AUTO UPHOLSTERY
140.00
741.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSCALHOUN TOWERS APTS
741.00
17,594.29ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
30.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION LEGAL SERVICES
379.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 6
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
690.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
750.00RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
214.38PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL SERVICES
330.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
120.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
20,108.17
11,200.00CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSESCARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
11,200.00
1,029.19IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
1,029.19
208.33EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESCBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERV
208.33
2,371.66TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
2,371.66
14,661.96DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
4,334.03GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,500.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
124,919.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
147,414.99
673.73FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
169.13PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
33.23WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
33.85NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
57.45GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A HEATING GAS
3,464.14WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
119.27REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
209.74SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
4,760.54
2,174.48FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,129.72ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
7,304.20
1,108.24SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
1,108.24
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 7
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,150.00
61.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCENTRAL STATES FIRE APPARATUS
3.98-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
57.88
385.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHERCHINOOK BOOK
385.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHRISTENSEN, PATRICK
200.00
149.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCHRYSLER JEEP
149.13
49.06GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
49.06
21.81-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
2.46ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.60ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE
349.06ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
5.36HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,310.79HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
550.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
55.22HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
294.66HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
105.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE
52.78IT G & A TRAINING
350.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
50.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
200.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
12.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
106.88POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.00POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
58.99POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
22.45POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
36.66POLICE G & A TRAINING
169.65Justice Assistance Grant -2005 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
35.37OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
345.99OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 8
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
345.93OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
75.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
10.73OPERATIONSTRAINING
1,422.44OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
19.95INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
74.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
195.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
11.84PUBLIC WORKS G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
230.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
71.23PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
352.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
20.32-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
195.97ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.70ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
316.64ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
30.05ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
47.30SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
367.57HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
71.23PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
191.46WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
12.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
45.10WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
127.53HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
96.55HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
50.77BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
71.24VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.73-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
12.86CABLE TV BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.48CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17.75SENIOR VIDEO CLUB MEETING EXPENSE
88.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING
699.61PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
230.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
230.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
67.79-EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
1,053.87EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,992.39
1,308.50CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1,308.50
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 9
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
507.96INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
507.96
26,896.33ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
26,896.33
436.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
436.60
130.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECOLLINS, ALISSA
130.00
35.37WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCOLLINS, AUDREY
35.37
159.95IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
159.95
642.78BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICECOMMERCIAL STEAM TEAM
642.78
75.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAININGCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
400.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
84.20STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
150.74CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
709.94
13,557.59EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
13,557.59
25,000.00COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
25,000.00
1,660.24BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
1,660.24
15.09-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCOOKE JP CO
234.54INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
219.45
750.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECORNELIUS, SAM
750.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 10
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,775.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERHOUSE
6,775.00
8,158.89POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOWELL, DAN
162.50
369.15BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICECRAWFORD DOOR SALES CO INC.
369.15
7.40-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
115.10DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
107.70
1,433.41CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL GENERAL SUPPLIESCREST PRECAST INC
1,433.41
378.83POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
378.83
1,628.78SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,060.20SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
718.20SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
222.30SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,629.48
956.31WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECUSTOM VALVE NUT REPLACEMENT
956.31
2,926.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTD&B POWER ASSOCIATES INC
2,926.00
25,745.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
2,273.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
28,019.16
2,535.21GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
1,224.02BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,759.23
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 11
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
63.51WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESDAY-TIMERS INC
63.51
58.15GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSDEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC
58.15
1,076.60OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESDELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP INC
1,076.60
1,742.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDEMARS SIGNS INC
1,742.00
8,227.30INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
90.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSES
8,317.30
462.20ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
462.20
772.58WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDISCOUNT STEEL INC
772.58
10,007.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
1,000.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,029.80PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
693.23PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
4,630.38PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
28,360.41
52,627.33GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
52,627.33
5,082.29SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
5,082.29
243.14WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDON'S RODENTS
243.14
56.46E BYRNE JAG 2009-10 MEETING EXPENSEDREIER, LORI A
56.46
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 12
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
684.13SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESDRYWALL SUPPLY INC
684.13
114.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
114.00
25.36PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDYNAMIC FASTENER
25.36
3,206.31POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDYNAMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
3,206.31
360.92ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESE-Z SHARP INC
360.92
6,645.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEARTH WIZARDS INC
6,645.00
15,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWEATON VANCE MGMT
15,000.00
318.01WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
1,509.73SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,827.74
190.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,377.50PPL LOUISIANA COURT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,567.50
15,213.66SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
15,213.66
1,434.60OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSEMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC
1,434.60
462.84PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
462.84
195.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
3.35-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
191.89
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 13
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,133.45HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC
8,133.45
847.63PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
847.63
25.32PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEM
25.32
108.54IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESERS DIGITAL
108.54
42,760.69STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
42,760.69
34,132.86SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,132.86
950.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
450.47VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
202.47GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
1,603.18
100.46BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEFAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC
100.46
44.54POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFEDEX
11.34POLICE G & A POSTAGE
27.18TASK FORCE REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
83.06
6,542.36WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
6,542.36
832.69ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
832.69
74.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFINE PROPERTIES OF MN LLP
74.00
328.83NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFLANNIGAN, JANE
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 14
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
328.83
71.25NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFLEETHAM, MIKE
71.25
20.54SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSFORCE AMERICA INC
926.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
20.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
967.88
12.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGFOSSE, ALI
12.00
3,096.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFOTH INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONM
3,096.00
176.40PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESFRANKLIN COVEY
176.40
372.17ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
372.17
255.28GARAGE MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARAGE DOOR STORE
264.75TRAININGOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
577.12REILLY G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
48.09TRAININGOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,145.24
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEGARCIA, MARY
35.00
57.20INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGGENE'S WATER & SEWER INC.
57.20
5,200.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS I
62,134.58CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
67,334.58
3,938.72EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
3,938.72
20.05WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGOLDBERG, RIVIAN
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 15
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
20.05
1,031.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
1,031.38
71.25REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRAEBER, ANNA
71.25
135.91GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
86.57GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
85.16PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.89VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.74WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
399.27
517.50ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
2,025.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
836.00DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,231.36WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
745.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,228.37INSTALLATIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,583.23
1,821.99GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
1,821.99
600.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESGREEN, HOWARD R COMPANY
600.00
350.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREG, RACHEL
350.00
119.24DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGRONSKI, PAM
119.24
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGUNSTAD, MARK
450.00
400.00FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
400.00
4,000.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHAMLINE UNIVERSITY
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 16
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,000.00
26.18WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESHASLERUD, CARRIE
41.00WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
67.18
10,773.14WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
10,773.14
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEARNE, STEVE
150.00
315.52WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
140.50WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
456.02
225.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
225.00
379.74ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEHENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTIONS
379.74
924.28IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
1,000.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
5,220.28
1,813.60POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS ACCTG
1,813.60
119.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
119.00
2,097.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
418.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
87,915.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
90,430.05
70.36OFFICE EQUIP MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHENRICKSEN PSG
70.36
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 17
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
6,675.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
6,675.00
115.37SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
115.37
2,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHOGAN, BRIAN
2,000.00
40.78GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
490.59SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.45ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
114.71ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
85.07SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.23MIXING SAND AND SALT GENERAL SUPPLIES
365.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.86PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
173.34PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
48.80PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
94.95PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
20.32WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
43.62WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
14.85WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
15.45WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
189.67REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
14.93SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.88STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,913.47
287.95WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
159.24WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
209.72WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
35.94WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
692.85
8.12GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
10.31POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.24ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
179.40PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
31.73BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.87WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 18
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12.80WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
17.58SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.88STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
320.32
115.00ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
115.00
100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
100.00
150.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
150.00
144.33WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
17.05WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
17.04WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
29.46HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.14-HALLOWEEN PARTY CONCESSION SUPPLIES
93.78SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
284.52
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHUCHMAN, PAUL
2,500.00
1,570.25EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,570.25
45.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTI/O SOLUTIONS INC
45.00
102.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSESIAEI
102.00
3,567.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGICC
3,567.00
15.74-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSICE SKATING INST AMERICA
244.74INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
229.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 19
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,854.56WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEIDEAL SERVICE INC
1,854.56
1,464.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIDENTISYS
1,464.00
2,422.08IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
2,422.08
2,309.90CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
2,309.90
46.35WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
16.72WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
42.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
105.07
38.51ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESINNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS
38.51
1,021.71PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESINNOVATIVE SURFACES
1,021.71
75.00POLICE G & A TRAININGINSIDE THE TAPE
75.00
2,408.61IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,408.61
288.56POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESINTOXIMETERS INC
265.24POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
553.80
760.56PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
5,096.73GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
5,857.29
89.51ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
63.74POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
153.25
240.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSISA
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 20
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
240.00
261.54ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTJ & F REDDY RENTS
261.54
72.84WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSJ&D 14-93 LP
72.84
5,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICJAKE'S EXCAVATING
5,000.00
899.00OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
899.00
18.23SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
4.61VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
44.78GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
210.62BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
7.97WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
286.21
225.69IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
225.69
173.75WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
173.75
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, DEREK
200.00
160.86WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, DICK
160.86
100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, KYLE
100.00
64.91WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHNSON, ROGER
64.91
172,808.50MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC
172,808.50
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 21
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
151.72WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
151.72
908.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEJUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC
908.00SEWER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
908.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,724.00
4,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWKCR HOMES LLC
4,500.00
553.84EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
553.84
3,492.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
1,136.00ESCROWSBADER DEV/ELLIPSE APTS
144.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTE
997.50HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES
5,769.50
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICKEVITT EXCAVATING INC
15,410.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17,910.00
485.63NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKILMER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
485.63
2,800.00CE INSPECTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
2,800.00
60.25REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKNUDSON, VICKY
60.25
37.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEKOTTKE, KATHRYN
37.00
324.21WEED CONTROL WEED CUTTINGKOZLOWSKI, JAMES
324.21
5,583.32PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
5,583.32
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 22
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
599.03SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRUELLE, BRYAN
599.03
119.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKRUGE-AIR INC
119.00
35.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGKUBE, CLARK
35.00
412.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAIS, CHERYL
412.50
61.63SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
61.63
279.99PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAMPERT YARDS INC
279.99
347.55ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
935.19RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,147.24BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2,429.98
3,334.50TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
3,334.50
2,268.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,268.00
131.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
156.67VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
288.53
1,125.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
1,125.00
33,902.95UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST
33,902.95
113,707.25EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
310.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
114,017.25
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 23
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
961.88HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTLEARNING JOURNEYS
961.88
38.27SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEASE, GREG
38.27
506.88PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDILEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES
506.88
496.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
496.00
112.50POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLESSARD, MICHAEL
112.50
144.90POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
144.90
76.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCELINDBERG, MARK
76.00
253.34ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUORLIQUOR BARREL
253.34
65.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
65.67
414.81IT G & A TELEPHONELOGIS
39,969.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
50.00SUPPORT SERVICES G&A COMPUTER SERVICES
16,039.01TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT COMPUTER SERVICES
56,472.82
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLOVETANG, TOM
162.50
537.68PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLOWELL'S REFINISH MASTERS
537.68
20.00MEETINGSTRAININGLTAP/MTU
20.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 24
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
564.31PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
95.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
659.31
3,840.02ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
3,840.02
132.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
357.26SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
489.74
462.40FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
462.40
257.46SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
257.46SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
257.46SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
257.46SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
482.75SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,512.59
222.81PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMARS CO, W P & R S
222.81PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
222.81WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
668.43
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMASICA, BRENTON
300.00
425.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMASON-CUTTERS
425.00
138.38FINANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMATRIX LASER CARE INC
138.38
213.76STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMCCROSSAN INC, C S
213.76
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMCKEON, MICHAEL
1,000.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 25
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
88.34REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMELANDER, ADRI
88.34
13.94DAMAGE REPAIR BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESMENARDS
120.61PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
81.93PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.90WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
117.38WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.33-HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.87PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
24.28WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
429.58
14,720.63SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
14,720.63
2,000.00BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
1,519.71BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
3,519.71
1,272.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
1,272.00
35,343.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
298,059.29WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
637,085.57
32.13WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
32.13
634.03PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
16,700.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,545.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
18,879.13
490.88POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
490.88
158.81-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMIDWEST TESTING LLC
5,078.81WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,920.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 26
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEMIKLYA, ANNE
35.00
59,195.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMILLERBERND MFG CO
59,195.00
395.76STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINING AUGER & TOOL WKS INC
395.76
375.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
375.00
339.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
339.00
160.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESMINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO
160.00
145.24EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
145.24
2,516.57EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
2,516.57
60.00SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE
25.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
85.00
21,575.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,575.00
90.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT LABOR & INDUSTR
100.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSES
80.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
270.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
210.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEMINNESOTA REMODELING & RESTORA
210.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 27
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
213.96STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
213.96
643.64SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
69.96WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
69.96SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
69.96SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES
69.96STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
923.48
10.26WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINVALCO INC
10.26
20.67-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMITOGRAPHERS INC
321.38INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.71
20.00BOILER MTCE LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
20.00
570.71OPERATIONSTRAININGMNFIAM BOOK SALES
570.71
25.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMNIAAI
25.00
462.92OPERATIONSTRAININGMNSCU MRTC
462.92
290.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGMOBIUS INC
290.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
580.00
30.00HUMAN RIGHTS GENERAL SUPPLIESMORGAN, STUART
30.00
7,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMORREIM, MATTHEW & MEGAN
7,500.00
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMPELRA
300.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 28
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
318.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMSPE
318.00
1,071.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
1,071.71
445.23OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES I
445.23
530.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
530.00
95.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGN E H A
95.00
756.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONNADEM, SIAR
756.00
81.95ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
20.40SANDING/SALTING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,957.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
86.36PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,162.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
843.54PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
111.42GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.08GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
4,339.53
929.13SPECIAL PROJECTS BUILDING MTCE SERVICENATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO
929.13
4,986.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
5,244.75SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,208.25SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,937.25SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,376.25
5,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICENEOGOV
5,000.00
734.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESNEP CORP
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 29
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
734.96
212.50FOOTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
212.50
95.21ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
114.04HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
392.33RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
88.12ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
139.78FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
328.85EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
752.27POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
376.66OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
88.21INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
281.70ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
468.88PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
124.24PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
223.03ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
308.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
93.55ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
323.06WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
88.21REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
89.33VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
387.13WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
202.81SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
28.42SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
4,993.95
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNGUYEN ARCHITECTS
225.00
5,265.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESNORTH STAR ART GLASS INC
5,265.00
25.00TRAININGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESNORTH WORKS OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
25.00
22,646.60TASK FORCE GRANTS - STATENORTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORC
22,646.60
22.40SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUENOWAK, ANGIE
22.40
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 30
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12,245.55COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGNYSTROM PUBLISHING
12,245.55
20.00WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARO'CONNOR, CHARLES
20.00
1,000.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1,000.00
345.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOAKWOOD PARTNERS
345.00
423.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOBERSTAR, KATIE
423.75
395.44TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
395.44
175.85ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
39.26HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
107.94SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
101.40ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
70.08FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
55.48GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
235.49FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
769.65POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
30.35POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3.87SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
55.34SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
472.51OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
371.17INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
521.13PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
312.83ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
178.45WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
5.00HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
3,505.80
350.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOLDS, ROBERT
350.00
274.76VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 31
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
31Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
274.76
29.47WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSOLSON, ROCKY
29.47
126.35TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESOMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC
126.35
2,494.23PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
171.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
160.32WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
24.05NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,849.60
800.27EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
800.27
5,780.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIOTTO, RACHEL
5,780.00
429.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
429.00
161.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPARTS PLUS
161.94
207,279.45CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPCI ROADS
207,279.45
1,233.66HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTPDI NINTH HOUSE
1,233.66
43.47ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESPECCHIA, TOM
43.47
1,780.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
1,780.00
3.22HUMAN RESOURCES CITEPETTY CASH
2.67POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
42.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 32
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
32Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
14.95COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
200.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PETTY
7.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
4.82WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23.58SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
301.24
282.78INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESPOLK, MARLA
2,215.30INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,498.08
3,166.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
152.10GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,318.61
721.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
721.00
806.66WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
806.66SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
806.65SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
806.65STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
3,226.62
1,290.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESPRECISION FIRE SPRINKLER INC
1,290.00
10,297.42TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
10,297.42
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPRINDVILLE, MEGAN
35.00
324.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
324.00
345.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
345.00
130.71BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
1,947.00SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,077.71
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 33
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
33Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,960.90SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
3,224.99STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,185.89
27.08HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
23.46GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
158.90
160.25POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
60.02ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
220.27
456.38IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
762.55COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,218.93
898.73ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICER & R SPECIALTIES
898.73
2,402.11FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
984.69REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
95.98WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
897.49SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
4,380.27
170.41WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
170.42SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
170.42SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
170.42STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
681.67
6,057.69SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHERREHRIG PACIFIC CO
6,057.69
257.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGRETAIL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
257.00
47.29NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESRICOH AMERICAS CORP
47.29
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 34
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
34Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,654.68WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
8,654.68
190.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATROCHESTER ARBORIST WORKSHOP
190.00
569.45PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESROSEN REMODEL & REPAIR, STEVE
569.45
219.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSROTARY CLUB OF SLP
170.00SUPERVISORYSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
330.00SUPERVISORYMEETING EXPENSE
719.00
280.00PLUMBING MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEROTO-ROOTER
280.00
504.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
504.45
196.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUDDY, WILLIAM
196.00
267.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
267.53
519.02STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESA-AG INC
519.02
458.65GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
458.65
144.49OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
677.09HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
235.32WARMING HOUSES GENERAL SUPPLIES
162.72CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
9.98BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
9.98WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
19.88WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
312.51WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
39.80FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,036.30HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 35
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
35Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,648.07
916.67ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUORSAUCE PIZZA & WINE
916.67
425.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALSAUER, LISA
425.00
275.42BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSAVITT BROS INC
214.48PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
489.90
1,970.51H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
1,970.51
158.82PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
672.34SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
995.65PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,826.81
1,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSCHIRBER, LAURA
1,500.00
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, JASON
362.50
244.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
244.00
988.10EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONSCHNEIDER, JENNIFER
988.10
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHUTTE, STEVE
150.00
42,158.16PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
3,844.28SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
46,310.44
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHELTER ARCHITECTURE
450.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 36
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
36Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
722.49PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
722.49
1,092.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIDEWALKS PLUS
1,092.00
14,362.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
14,362.00
1,144.62BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
1,144.62
59.22CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICESKB ENVIRONMENTAL
59.22
1,599.53EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,599.53
10,000.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSMITH, SHAWN
10,000.00
675.00HARD SURFACE FLOOR MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSONUS INTERIORS INC
675.00
102.98BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSPARTAN GROUP LLC
102.98
395.23PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSPORT SUPPLY GROUP INC
395.23
1,456.00IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,456.00
18.64SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
18.64
6,403.96ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
1,969.64ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,258.48PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,865.45CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,763.15CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 37
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
37Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22,260.68
200.00GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSST CLOUD SPRINKLER INC
200.00
100.00CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK BLUE LINE CLUB
100.00
935.65STEP/HAMILTON HOUSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORIT
20,265.24MHFAOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,200.89
888.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC
888.00
85.50INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALSTAFFORD ELECTRIC, PAUL
85.50
223.60ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSTAR TRIBUNE
223.60
56,500.00STEP/HAMILTON HOUSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTEP
56,500.00
174.57REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTILLMAN, MARTIN
174.57
2,052.46PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
2,052.46
3,447.92POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
3,447.92
3,076.12PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
3,076.12
250.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION
250.00
1,328.17ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
1,328.17
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 38
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
38Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,720.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESSUNDE LAND SURVEYING LLC
3,720.00
591,018.06SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSUNSET RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSN
591,018.06
800.88GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESUPERIOR FORD
800.88
635.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTADDIKEN, DAVID
635.00
447.89IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
447.89
29.37-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTAMARACK MATERIALS INC
456.57PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
427.20
28.37POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
30.28POLICE G & A TRAINING
58.65
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTCALMC
300.00
1,173.16DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
1,173.16
14.19ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
14.19
348.72BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
348.72
300.61VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
300.61
54.71GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTERMINIX INT
74.56BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
74.55WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
291.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 39
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
39Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
494.82
3,950.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
3,950.00
90.52ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
106.58HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
31.68COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
83.40IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
39.96ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
129.60FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
225.12COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
242.10POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
153.66OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
115.62INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
87.22PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
113.66ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.96PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
137.48ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.96PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
34.16ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
34.16WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
36.10REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
35.12VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
33.18HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
40.96WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,762.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
5,614.20
72.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTHERON PROPERTIES
72.39
39,729.10CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITHOMAS & SONS CONST INC
39,729.10
456.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
456.00
1,480.14ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,480.14
667.27SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 40
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
40Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
667.27
4,807.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOWMASTER
4,807.06
481.20WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTREE TRUST
1,800.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
279.29PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,560.49
1,662.52PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS LLC
1,662.52
664.00WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESTWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
664.00
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
56.01-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSUHL CO INC
870.73GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
674.60POLICE G & A REPAIRS
1,489.32
1,243.45PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIULINE
1,243.45
13.89OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
366.41OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
380.30
343.76SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
2,212.27PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
42.74TASK FORCE OTHER
2,598.77
31.50ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC
1,986.68ENGINEERING G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
2,018.18
382.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
382.00
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 41
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
41Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,180.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
1,180.00
109.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
109.00
25.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA VET DI
25.00
110.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
110.00
6,928.71TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
6,928.71
269.39WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUPS STORE
269.39
39.66WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
39.66
615.80HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
615.80
60.55OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
17.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
26.75GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.16SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
157.02
86,023.99CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
86,023.99
221.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
221.00
80.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS
80.00
2,888.53VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
146.52COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 42
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
42Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,035.05
62.84TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
173.46WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
236.30
675.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESVISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL
30,351.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
31,026.00
69.24WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWAGNER, LAURA
69.24
37.75COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSEWALTHER, SEAN
240.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
277.75
63.00HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
618.99SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,500.00-SOLID WASTE G&A MISCELLANEOUS
1,617.66SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
114,338.92SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
47,728.20SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
57,914.55SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
37,334.24SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
257,115.56
293.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
293.00
219.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
219.50
1,596.25BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWAVS INC
1,596.25
83.87GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESWAYTEK
83.87
4,997.53WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
1,908.07STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
6,905.60
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 43
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
43Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
400.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWELDON, DAN
400.00
35.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWESTERN, SANDY
35.00
480.94SPECIAL PROJECTS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWHEELER HARDWARE
480.94
335.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHILEY, GALEN
335.00
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEWILLIAMS, AMANDA
35.00
7,235.12TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTWILSONS NURSERY INC
7,235.12
102.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESWIPERS & WIPES INC
102.60
1,143.93ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
1,143.93
299.25ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWRAP CITY GRAPHICS
466.25PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
765.50
784.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESWSB ASSOC INC
784.00
410.10NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWYATT, LISA
410.10
22,773.74FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
20.91OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
53,674.89PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,001.81PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
317.75PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
16.89BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
46.50WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 44
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
44Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
763.64WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,385.55ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
38.34GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
26,198.87WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31.35OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,589.77REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,749.68SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,389.58STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
272.56OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
125,271.83
18,920.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESXTERIOR XPERTS
9,259.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
28,179.00
1,425.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTYESS!
1,425.00
47,178.14PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
47,178.14
9.99PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
9.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
240.79BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
280.76
30.00WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARZEMBRYKI, MARK
30.00
136.66ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
136.66
988.65-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
1,413.46GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
424.81
277.67ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
111.01SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
388.68
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 45
12/15/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:44:03R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
45Page -Council Check Summary
12/17/2010 -11/6/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
Report Totals 6,425,448.44
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 4o)
Subject: Vendor Claims
Page 46
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4p
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
Hamilton House – Activity Room
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Justin
Kaufman
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for September, 2010
The Board minutes of September 15, 2010 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Authorization to Establish Program Guidelines and Administer the Louisiana
Court Max 200 Shallow Rent Subsidy Program
Ms. Schnitker provided background on the Louisiana Court Max 200 Shallow
Rent Subsidy Program which will provide a $200 monthly rent subsidy for up to
20 units at Louisiana Court. The funding source will be Park Center TIF District
funds. Commissioners Courtney and DuFour suggested some changes to the
program guidelines. After discussion, Commissioner DuFour moved to authorize
the establishment of program guidelines and administration of the Louisiana
Court Max 200 Shallow Rent Subsidy Program. Commissioner Kaufman
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
b. Approval of the Participation of Hennepin County in the Louisiana Court Project
through the Award of Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Award, Resolution No.
600
Ms. Schnitker explained that the Hennepin County Housing Redevelopment
Authority (HCHRA) awarded a $550,000 grant to PPL, through the Affordable
Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF), to assist with debt reduction and rehab of
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item 4p) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes of November 11, 2010
Louisiana Court. Commissioner Kaufman moved Resolution No. 599, which had
been tabled at the September, 2010, meeting, and Commissioner DuFour
seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-0. Commissioner Kaufman then moved
to approve Resolution No. 600, Approval of the Participation of Hennepin County
in the Louisiana Court Project through the Award of Affordable Housing
Incentive Fund Award. Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion, and the
motion passed 3-0.
c. Approval of Capital Improvement Project Contract: Hamilton House
Ms. Schlegel sought Board approval to enter into a contract with Falls and
Nyhusmoen Construction for interior renovation projects at Hamilton House. The
contract will be funded from a $218,000 Publicly Owned Housing Program award
from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), with the balance coming
from 2010 Capital Fund Program (CFP) funds. Commissioner Kaufman moved to
enter into a contract with Falls and Nyhusmoen Construction, in the amount of
$237,156, and contingent upon a written loan commitment from MHFA, for
interior renovations at Hamilton House. Commissioner DuFour seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – October and November, 2010
Commissioner Kaufman inquired about the number of voided checks on the
October – November, 2010 claims List, stating that it seemed higher than other
months. Staff will ask the Finance department for an explanation.
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – October and November, 2010
2. Louisiana Court Update: Verbal Report
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner DuFour moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Kaufman
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing and Resolution Approving Establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the establishment of the Hardcoat
Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (an economic
development district).
Motion to ratify the EDA resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan for advance of certain costs in
connection with the Hardcoat TIF District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the establishment of the Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District to facilitate the proposed purchase and renovation of 7301 - 7317 W. Lake Street (the
former Flame Metals property)?
The EDA will have considered the above actions earlier in the evening.
Hardcoat’s CAP application was reviewed at the November 8th Study Session where it was
favorably received. At its November 15th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of
December 20th for the creation of the proposed TIF district. Potential business terms that would
serve as the basis for a development contract were previewed at the December 13th Study
Session. It is now time to take the final step in the TIF process which is to formally authorize the
creation of the TIF district which enables the City to allocate tax increment generated from the
proposed Hardcoat project to the Development Fund so as to reimburse a portion of the CAP
funds provided to Hardcoat for the proposed project.
BACKGROUND:
Hardcoat Inc. (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire 7301 - 7317 W. Lake Street (the
former Flame Metals property) located across the street to the south. The company plans to renovate
the building and site, and relocate its operations there. The industrial building is approximately 33,600
square feet and was constructed in 1963. It was in very poor condition with numerous building code
deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior has been emptied,
thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly
all the building’s operating systems have been removed.
Hardcoat’s plans include a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well
as the construction of a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new
windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new
energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities,
as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the
building. Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
square feet of the building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide
Hardcoat with future expansion capacity.
Request for Financial Assistance
Hardcoat has negotiated a Purchase Agreement with A & D Holdings LLC, (the current owner of
the Development property) for $1,010,000. The purchase price is $174,700 less than the
property’s current assessed value.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds is estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount,
Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in Construction Assistance: which equals approximately
33% of total renovation costs. When one adds the cost of the property ($1,010,000), the hard
costs related to the building renovation ($1,400,000), the cost of new equipment ($500,000), as
well as soft costs and permits estimated at ($136,500), the entire project will total nearly $3.05
million.
Proposed Funding Sources
As authorized by state statute, the source of the CAP funds is available tax increment revenue
generated by five of the City’s TIF districts. These funds will be disbursed from the
Development Fund. Given the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request, an Economic Development TIF
District is proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP funding provided to Hardcoat. It is
estimated that the TIF district could generate approximately $207,000 over its 9-year term. Such
an arrangement requires ratification of the EDA’s Interfund Loan Resolution.
Structure of the CAP Funds
CAP funds will be provided to Hardcoat upon prove-up that the property was purchased and the
proposed construction costs were incurred. In order to remain in compliance with the TIF Act,
the CAP funds will technically be applied to Hardcoat’s property acquisition costs as these are
considered “qualified costs” under the rules for Economic Development TIF Districts. The
funding will be structured as a forgivable loan through a mortgage. Provided the building is
held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5 years after project completion, the entirety
of the loan could be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project completion,
the loan must be repaid along with 6% accrued interest from the date funding was provided.
TIF District Approvals
Hardcoat’s CAP application was reviewed at the November 8th Study Session where it was
favorably received. At its November 15th meeting, the City Council set a public hearing date of
December 20th for the creation of the proposed economic development TIF district. Business
terms that would serve as the basis for a development contract were previewed at the December
13th Study Session where they were favorably received. The Planning Commission reviewed the
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing Plan on December 15th and determined it was in
conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Synopsis of the Proposed TIF District
In order to reimburse the EDA for a portion of the CAP funds provided to Hardcoat, a new
economic development TIF district is proposed. Tax increment generated from this new district
will then be deposited back into the Development Fund. The proposed Hardcoat TIF District
consists of the two former Flame Metals parcels: 7301 & 7317 W. Lake Street. The proposed
TIF District is within the city’s Redevelopment Project Area as is statutorily required. Inclusion
of the proposed project within a designated Redevelopment Project Area gives the EDA/Council
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
the authority to assist with all the economic development actions necessary to implement
Hardcoat project.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan establishing the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District. The Plan was prepared by the EDA’s TIF consultant, Ehlers & Associates. TIF
Plans establish the geographic boundaries and financial parameters of a particular TIF district as well
as the findings which statutorily qualify the district. In a general sense, TIF plans may be viewed as
enabling legislation. The specific mutual obligations between the EDA and the Developer are
contained in a separate Development Contract between the parties.
It should be noted that the financing uses and project costs reflected within the Uses of Funds
section of the proposed TIF Plan is a not-to-exceed budget and not the actual expected project
budget.
Feasibility and Duration of the Hardcoat TIF District
The financial assistance to be provided to Hardcoat to facilitate the proposed project meets the
requirements necessary to create an Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements
include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and
(3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s proposed project qualifies as an Economic Development
TIF District. It is estimated that upon completion the proposed project will generate
approximately $207,000 over the 9-year term of the district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Authorizing the establishment of the Hardcoat TIF District does not, in itself, commit the City to
any specific level of assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it simply creates the
funding vehicle that enables the EDA to reimburse itself for a portion of the CAP funds provided
to Hardcoat. The terms and amount of CAP assistance are specified within the Development
Contract with Hardcoat which also is to be considered at Monday night’s EDA meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hardcoat’s proposal to purchase and completely renovate the former Flame Metals building is
consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental
stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Resolution Adopting Modification to Redevelopment Plan
Resolution Approving Internal Loan
Hardcoat TIF Plan Summary (see 122010 EDA Item 7a)
Hardcoat TIF Plan (see 122010 EDA Item 7a)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1;
AND ESTABLISHING THE HARDCOAT TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA that the City adopt a
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and establish the Hardcoat Tax Increment
Financing District (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF
Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law,
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The City has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans
to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but
not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283 having
taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written
comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2010, approval of the
Plans by the EDA on December 20, 2010, and the holding of a public hearing upon published
notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the
Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include
data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings
and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the
Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the
same extent as if set forth in full herein.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
1.05 The Council recognizes that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subd. 3, clause b, there is a mandatory fiscal disparities contribution for the District, an
economic development district.
1.06. The Council intends to provide certain tax increment assistance from the District
pursuant to the temporary authority provided pursuant to Laws 2010, Chapter 216, Section 31
(the “Jobs Act”).
1.07. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project Area, but is however,
modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification.
2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically
finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without
the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for
the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an
"economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the
Act.
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the
Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole;
and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. Findings for Use of Tax Increment from Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing
District to Provide Assistance Pursuant to Jobs Act.
4.01. The Council hereby finds that the proposed development to be assisted through
tax increments from the District will create or retain jobs in the state, including construction jobs.
4.02. The Council further finds that construction of the proposed development would
not commence prior to July 1, 2011, without tax financing assistance.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
Section 5. Public Purpose.
5.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state or municipality, will result in increased employment in the state, and will result in
preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the State and thereby serves a public purpose.
For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the
tax increment assistance provided under the TIF Plan. The private developer of the proposed
development will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially
feasible. As such, any private benefits received by such developer are incidental and do not
outweigh the primary public benefits.
Section 6. Approval and Adoption of the Plans.
6.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Coordinator.
6.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
6.03. The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the
amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the EDA is
authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and
content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for
which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the
adoption of this resolution.
6.04. The Economic Development Coordinator is further authorized and directed to file
a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No.6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing & Resolution Approving Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERNAL LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH HARDCOAT
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (the “TIF Act”), the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) and the City have established the
Hardcoat Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1
in the City.
1.02. The Authority is authorized to use increment from the TIF District to pay certain costs
(the “Qualified Costs”) identified in the Tax Increment Financing Plan (‘TIF Plan”).
1.03. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7 of the TIF Act, the Authority
is authorized to advance or loan money from legally available City or Authority funds, in order to
finance the Qualified Costs, and to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments
derived from the TIF District.
1.04. On the date hereof, the Authority approved a resolution (the “Loan Resolution”)
authorizing the Interfund Loan, designating funds from certain prior tax increment financing
districts authorized for such purposes pursuant to the Spending Plan (as defined in the Loan
Resolution) as the source of funds for the Interfund Loan, and setting the terms for repayment of the
Interfund Loan using tax increment from the TIF District.
Section 2. Interfund Loan Approved.
2.01. The City approves the Interfund Loan described in the Loan Resolution, and
authorizes the use of the Spending Plan funds as the source of funds for the Interfund Loan.
2.02. The City Controller is authorized and directed to credit repayments of the Interfund
Loan to the relevant Spending Plan funds according to the terms set forth in the Loan Resolution.
2.03. City staff and officials are hereby authorized and directed to execute any collateral
documents and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
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:
The City Council considered the request by DRF G & C for a drive-through at the existing Dairy
Queen restaurant at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard at its meeting of December 6, 2010. At the
meeting there were presentations by Staff and the applicant, and testimony from four citizens.
Following discussion, the Council voted to direct Staff and the City Attorney to revise the
resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and to bring the revised resolution to the Council
for final adoption at its next meeting. Pursuant to the direction of the Council, the revised
resolution is attached.
Subsequent to the December 6 Council meeting, Dave Anderson, Applicant’s representative,
advised Staff that the City Council packet did not include a revised site plan showing how
Applicant would propose to meet the 100 foot residential setback requirement. Applicant made
no mention of this after receiving the agenda materials or at the City Council meeting.
Attached is the revised site plan which shows a 100 foot setback. This plan does not meet the
setback requirement because it measures the 100 feet from the center of the drive aisle instead of
the southerly curb. Most importantly, assuming that the Applicant could further shift the drive
aisle to the north to meet the setback requirement, the problem with the site design as outlined in
the Staff report and Findings remain the same.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution – Conditional Use Permit
Revised Site Plan – Dairy Queen
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 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
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. At the December 6,
2010 City Council meeting, Dairy Queen representatives indicated that the drive-
through stacking area could be relocated to meet this requirement. The indicated
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
relocation, however, would not eliminate any of the site design problems set forth in
subparagraph 3.d. herein.
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;
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.”
v. The City Code does not make a distinction between restaurants with or
without a drive-through in calculating parking requirements.
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;
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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;
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;
viii. Long term traffic and sales volumes for Dairy Queen or other future operators
of the restaurant and drive-through are unknown;
ix. The addition of the drive-through changes the restaurant from a sit-down
restaurant to one that primarily caters to drive-through customers.
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
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
exit-only;
c. Pedestrian activity will be negatively impacted to and from the DQ
and adjacent properties;
d. Noise impacts will 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 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 addition of the drive-
through changes the restaurant from a sit-down restaurant to one that
primarily caters to drive-through customers. Additionally, 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.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service
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 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Dairy Queen – Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service Page 7
Meeting Date: December 20, 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:
Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Registered Land Survey for Namakan Properties, LLC
at Hwy 7 and Blake Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City allow the re-conveyance of excess MnDOT land for private use?
BACKGROUND:
The parcel owned by Namakan Properties is located on the southeast quadrant of State Highway
7 and Blake Road. The property is improved with a small retail building that is currently
occupied with Restwell, Carpet King and The Little Gym. The building also has a vacant tenant
space that cannot be leased due to insufficient parking. There is a considerable amount of excess
MnDOT right-of-way adjacent to the building, and Namakan Properties would like to purchase
some of the land so they can expand the parking lot. The additional parking will enable them to
lease the remaining tenant space.
Registered Land Survey (RLS):
City Council approval of an RLS is the vehicle for splitting the MnDOT land into two parcels.
One parcel will be retained by MnDOT, the other will be conveyed to Namakan Properties.
Process for Re-conveyance of MnDOT Land:
State law requires the sale of MnDOT land to be conveyed through the city first, then the city
may sell it to Namakan Properties. The transactions are set up to be simultaneous, so the city
would own the land for only a moment.
City Council approved a purchase agreement on November 15, 2010. The agreement authorizes
the city to sell the land to Namakan Properties, and it requires Namakan Properties to pay all
expenses associated with the transaction. The purchase price of the MnDOT land is $44,500.
An additional $1,000 would be paid by Namakan Properties to cover city expenses.
The agreement can be executed when the RLS is approved by all parties including the city.
Namakan Properties, MnDOT and Hennepin County are in agreement on the RLS. The final
step is approval of the RLS by the city.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
MnDOT Review:
Namakan Properties first expressed an interest in the MnDOT land early in 2009. At the time,
MnDOT was beginning a reconstruction of the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection, so the
request was deferred until the
improvements were completed
(October 2009). At the conclusion
of the project, MnDOT determined
there was excess land that could be
sold, and the process was initiated.
MnDOT determined it only needed
approximately 15 feet from the
edge of Blake Road and the
Highway 7 frontage road, and was
willing to convey the remaining
land. (See illustration)
City Review:
Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that more than 15 feet of right-of-way between the
Namakan Property and Blake Road should be preserved. While the MnDOT improvements
alleviated some visibility and safety issues at the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection; the
intersection is still congested.
Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that additional inter-
section improvements may be
needed in the future. In addition
to the potential for future
intersection improvements, the
city also owns a monument sign
in the MnDOT property which
MnDOT determined to be
excess, and that staff feels should
not be sold.
Staff recommended that a significant portion of the right-of-way be retained by MnDOT at the
intersection, and the remaining right-of-way adjacent to the new cul-de-sac be conveyed. This
gives MnDOT sufficient space for future intersection improvements, it keeps the city monument
on public property, and the property proposed to be conveyed is sufficient in size to give
Namakan Properties the number of parking spaces needed to lease the remaining tenant space in
the building. The recommendation was accepted by MnDOT and Namakan Properties.
Easements:
There are three utilities that run north-south across the property that will be protected by
easements. Easements are not allowed to be shown on an RLS, so all easements will be recorded
by separate written documents at the same time as the RLS.
Excess MnDOT property
Remain MnDOT property.
Excess MnDOT property
MnDOT Proposal
City Proposal
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
Sidewalk
The Subdivision Ordinance requires the construction of sidewalk along all public streets. Staff
recommends as a condition of approval that a sidewalk be constructed along the north property
line directly in front of the retail building. The sidewalk would terminate at the cul-de-sac
directly across from the trail leading from the cul-de-sac to the Highway 7/Blake Road
intersection. (See attached preliminary RLS document for location of the MnDOT trail.)
Parking Lot:
As noted above, Namakan Properties plans to expand the parking lot into the vacated MnDOT
property. The illustration below shows how a parking lot could be arranged in the space. The
illustration is conceptual; it will need to meet all city requirements for landscaping and
dimensions. These will be addressed when a parking lot permit application is submitted next
spring. The proposed parking lot would replace a non-conforming paved area currently on the
MnDOT property that is informally being used for parking.
City Monument:
The city monument is currently in the MnDOT right-of-way, and is protected by an easement in
favor of the city. This arrangement will remain in place, and is unaffected by the proposed RLS.
Next Step:
If the council approves the RLS, then the city will execute the purchase agreement previously
approved by the council on November 15, 2010, and the RLS will be recorded. After the
transaction is complete, Namakan Properties will expand the parking lot in the spring.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance of MnDOT land would place more land in the private sector, and increase the
city tax base at no cost to the city.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance would enhance the commercial property, and allow the retail building to
better meet the needs of the neighborhood.
Attachments: Site Map
Preliminary Registered Land Survey
Registered Land Survey
Resolution
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
SITE MAP
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
Preliminary Registered Land Survey (RLS)
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
Registered Land Survey (RLS)
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR
A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY (RLS) FOR NAMAKAN PROPERTIES AT
HIGHWAY 7 AND BLAKE ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Namakan Properties, LLC and Minnesota Department of Transportation, owners and
subdividers of the land proposed for a Registered Land Survey have submitted an application for
approval of registered land survey in the manner required under the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed Registered Land Survey has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed Registered Land Survey is situated upon the following described
lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Tract DD lying Westerly of the following line: Beginning at a point on the
Northerly line of said Tract DD, which point is 79.89 feet Southwesterly from the most
Northerly corner of said Tract DD, as measured along said Northerly line of Tract DD;
thence Southerly to a point in the Southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 7,
which point is 100 feet Southwesterly from the intersection of said Southerly right of way
line with Easterly line of said Tract DD; thence continuing Southerly along the last
described course to a point in the South line of said Tract DD, which point is 100 feet
West from the Southeast corner of said Tract DD, as measured along said South line and
there terminating, except that part thereof lying west of a line distant 354 feet East,
parallel with and measured at right angles to the West line of said Tract DD, Registered
Land Survey No. 1058, County of Hennepin
and
All the part of Tract DD, Registered Land Survey No. 1058, lying West of a line distant
354 East parallel with and measured at right angles to the West line of said Tract DD and
its North extension.
Conclusion
1. The proposed Registered Land Survey is hereby approved and accepted by the
City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City
of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is
made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to
the following conditions:
a. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the north property line beginning at the east
property line of Tract A, and extending westerly to the entrance of the cul-de-sac.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Namakan Properties - Registered Land Survey (RLS) Hwy 7 / Blake Road
b. Drainage and utility easements shall be drafted by Namakan Properties as required by
the City Engineer, and recorded simultaneously with the RLS.
c. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said Registered Land Survey when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said Registered Land Survey by the City
Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be
conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged
with duties above described and shall entitle such Registered Land Survey to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 20, 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:
Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt second reading of an Ordinance providing for a Local Lodging Tax, approve
summary, and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support the establishment of a 3% local lodging tax to fund the operation
of a St. Louis Park Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB)?
At the December 6th Study Session it was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with
consideration of the 2nd Reading of the ordinance which creates a lodging tax and undertake the
necessary steps to form a CVB. As a matter of policy, the Council expressed its intent to review
the continuation of the tax after the proposed CVB has been in operation for 5 years.
The proposed ordinance indicates that the effective date of the lodging tax is March 1, 2011.
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 the 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
November 23rd. At that meeting the hotel representatives voiced several concerns which are
summarized as follows:
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
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 also 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.
At the December 6th Study Session the City Council reviewed the concerns expressed by the
hoteliers. Upon discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with
consideration of the 2nd Reading of the ordinance establishing a lodging tax and undertake the
necessary steps to form the CVB. As a matter of policy, the Council expressed its intent to
review the continuation of the tax after the proposed CVB has been in operation for 5 years. Staff
was asked to provide examples of metrics by which the City Council could evaluate the CVB’s
operation. Such metrics are included in the attached draft Business Plan and Sales & Marketing
Plan for the proposed CVB. Also attached are sample Performance Goals and Measures from the
Eagan and Fargo CVBs which could be utilized in such an evaluation.
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
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
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
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 example, 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 (such as facility amenities, services
and rates) that typically 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
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
**St. Paul: 3% for lodging properties with less than 50 units; 6% for those with 50 or more units
NOTE: Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis and St. Paul all have special legislation to exceed the 3% lodging tax limit
LOCAL LODGING TAX ORDINANCE:
The primary revenue source for operating convention and visitors bureaus in Minnesota is a local
lodging tax. Minn Stat. 469.190, Subd. 1 authorizes local governments to adopt an ordinance
imposing a tax of up to three percent (3%) of the gross receipts of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming
house, tourist court or resort.
Under the proposed Ordinance, the tax shall be paid to the City by the operator of the local lodging
establishments (of which there are currently six) not later than 25 days after the end of the month in
which the taxes are collected. The proposed Ordinance will take effect March 1, 2011. The City
Attorney assisted in drafting the proposed Ordinance.
Pursuant to state statute, ninety-five percent of gross proceeds from the lodging tax must be used to
fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city as a
tourist or convention destination. According to a Minnesota Attorney General’s opinion, tax proceeds
collected are limited to expenditures for advertising or similar types of marketing or promotion of
the City as a tourist or convention center that enhances the attractiveness of the community.
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.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon adoption of the second reading of the proposed Ordinance, the Articles of Incorporation
will be filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and members of the CVB board of directors will
be recruited and selected. The City Council will also be asked to formally consider an Operating
Agreement between the City and the proposed CVB. A meeting of the CVB board of directors
will also be held in the coming weeks at which officers will be elected and founding documents
(such as the Bylaws, Operating Agreement, Business Plan, and Job Descriptions) will be
considered. Recruitment for a president of the CVB will begin in the first quarter of next year.
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.
Attachments: Lodging Tax Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Draft CVB Business Plan
Draft CVB Sales and Marketing Plan
Sample Performance Goals and Measures
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
ORDINANCE NO. ____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 TO ADD A
NEW ARTICLE PROVIDING A LOCAL LODGING TAX
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 8 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new
Article IV to read as follows:
ARTICLE IV
LOCAL LODGING TAX
Sec. 8-800. Definitions.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, wherever used in this Article, the following words
shall have the meanings given to them by the Section.
Lodging means the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming
house, tourist court, or resort, other than the renting or leasing of it for a continuous period of
thirty (30) calendar days or more.
Operator means a person who provides lodging to others, or any office, agent or
employee of such person.
Sec. 8-801. Imposition of Tax.
There is hereby imposed a tax of three percent (3%) on the gross receipts from the
furnishing for consideration of lodging.
Sec. 8-802. Collection.
Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this Article at the time rent is paid. The
tax collections shall be held in trust by the operator for the City. The amount of tax shall be
separately stated from the rent charged for the lodging.
Sec. 8-803. Payment and Returns.
The taxes imposed by this Article shall be paid by the operator to the City not later than
twenty-five (25) calendar days after the end of the month in which the taxes were collected. At
the time of payment the operator shall submit a return upon such forms and containing such
information as the City may require. The return shall contain the following minimum
information:
(1) The total amount of rent collected for lodging during the period covered by the
return.
(2) The amount of tax required to be collected and due for the period.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
(3) The signature of the person filing the return or that of his agent duly authorized in
writing.
(4) The period covered by the return.
(5) The amount of uncollectible rental charges subject to the lodging tax.
The operator may take a credit against taxes payable the amount of taxes previously paid for rent
that was not actually collected.
Sec. 8-804. Examination of Returns, Adjustments, Notices, Demands and Audit.
After a return is filed, the City shall examine it and make any investigation or
examination of the records and accounts of the person making the return deemed necessary for
determining its correctness including a formal audit. The tax computed on the basis of such
examination shall be the tax to be paid. If the tax due is found to be greater than that paid, such
excess shall be paid to the City within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of a notice thereof
given either personally or sent by registered mail to the address shown on the return. If the tax
paid is greater than the tax found to be due, the excess shall be refunded to the person who paid
the tax to the City within ten (10) calendar days after determination of such refund.
Sec. 8-805. Refunds.
Any person may apply to the City for a refund of taxes paid for a prescribed period in
excess of the amount legally due for that period, provided that no application for refund shall be
considered unless filed within one year after such tax was paid, or within one year from the filing
of the return, whichever period is the longer. The City shall examine the claim and make and file
written findings thereon denying or allowing the claim in whole or in part and shall mail a notice
thereof by registered mail to such person at the address stated upon the return. If such claim is
allowed in whole or in part, the City shall credit the amount of the allowance against any taxes
due under this Article from the claimant and the balance of the allowance, if any, shall be paid by
the City to the claimant.
Sec. 8-806. Failure to File a Return.
If any operator required by this Article to file a return shall fail to do so within the time
prescribed, or shall make, willfully or otherwise, an incorrect, false, or fraudulent return, the
operator shall, upon written notice and demand, file such return or corrected return within five
(5) calendar days of receipt of such written notice and shall at the same time pay any tax due on
the basis thereof. If such person shall fail to file such return or corrected return, the City shall
make a return or corrected return, for such person from such knowledge and information as the
City can obtain, and assess a tax on the basis thereof, which tax (less any payments theretofore
made on account of the tax for the taxable period covered by such return) shall be paid within
five (5) calendar days of the receipt of written notice and demand for such payment. Any such
return or assessment made by the City shall be prima facie correct and valid, and such person
shall have the burden of establishing its incorrectness or invalidity in any action or proceeding in
respect thereto. If any portion of a tax imposed by this Article is not paid within thirty (30)
calendar days after it is required to be paid, the City Attorney may institute such legal action as
may be necessary to recover the amount due plus interest, and costs and disbursements. Upon a
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
showing of good cause, the City may grant an operator one thirty (30) day extension of time
within which to file a return and make payment of taxes as required by this Article provided that
interest during such period of extension shall be added to the taxes due at the rate of one and
one-half percent (1.5%) per month.
Sec. 8-807. Interest.
The amount of tax not timely paid shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half
percent (1.5%) per month from the time such tax should have been paid until paid. Any interest
shall be added to the tax and be collected as part thereof.
Sec. 8-808. Violations.
Any person who shall willfully fail to make a return required by this Article; or who shall
fail to pay the tax after written demand for payment, or who shall fail to remit the taxes collected
or any interest imposed by this Article after written demand for such payment or who shall refuse
to permit the City to examine the books, records and papers under his or her control, or who shall
willfully make any incomplete, false or fraudulent return shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Sec. 8-809. Use of Proceeds.
Ninety five percent (95%) of the proceeds obtained from the collection of taxes pursuant
to this Article shall be used in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 469.190 as the same
may be amended from time to time to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose
of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center.
Sec. 8-810. Appeals.
Any operator aggrieved by any notice, order or determination made by the City under this
Article may file a petition for review of such notice, order or determination detailing the
operator's reasons for contesting the notice, order or determination. The petition shall contain
the name of the petitioner, the petitioner's address and the location of the lodging subject to the
order, notice or determination. The petition for review shall be filed with the City Clerk within
ten (10) calendar days after the notice, order or determination for which review is sought has
been mailed or served upon the person requesting review. Upon receipt of the petition the City
Manager, or the Manager's designee, shall set a date for a hearing and give the petitioner at least
five (5) calendar days' prior written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing. At the
hearing, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to show cause why the notice, order or
determination should be modified or withdrawn. The petitioner may be represented by counsel
of petitioner's choosing at petitioner's own expense. The hearing shall be conducted by the City
Manager or the Manager's designee, provided only that the person conducting the hearing shall
not have participated in the drafting of the order, notice or determination for which review is
sought. The person conducting the hearing shall make written findings of fact and conclusions
based upon the applicable sections of this Article and the evidence presented. The person
conducting the hearing may affirm, reverse or modify the notice, order or determination made by
the City. Any decision rendered by the City Manager pursuant to this subdivision may be
appealed to the City Council. A petitioner seeking to appeal a decision must file a written notice
of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days after the decision has been mailed to
the petitioner. The matter will thereupon be placed on the Council agenda as soon as is practical.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
The Council shall then review the findings of fact and conclusions to determine whether they
were correct. Upon a determination by the Council that the findings and conclusions were
incorrect, the Council may modify, reverse or affirm the decision of the City Manager or his
designee upon the same standards as set forth in this subdivision.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect March 1, 2011.
Public Hearing First Reading November 1, 2010
Second Reading December 20, 2010
Summary Ordinance Published December 30, 2010
Ordinance takes effect March 1, 2011
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 TO ADD A
NEW ARTICLE PROVIDING A LOCAL LODGING TAX
This ordinance amends Chapter 8 business and licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park
providing for a Local Lodging Tax. This ordinance shall take effect March 1, 2011.
Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 30, 2010
Business Plan
For
St. Louis Park
Convention and Visitors
Bureau
Experience St. Louis Park
Proposed
September 2010
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 10
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Corporate Name 4
Mission Statement/Vision Statement/Values 4
Implementation Timeline 5
Organization Development and Governance Recommendations 6
Composition of the Board of Directors 7
Organizational Committee Structure 8
Physical Location 10
Administrative Start‐Up Tasks 10
Staffing and Leadership 12
Assessment and Inventory of Key Stakeholders and Critical Partnerships 13
Evaluation Metrics 16
Financial Recommendations 21
Communications and Media Relations Suggestions 24
Marketing Strategies and Services 26
General Conclusions 27
Exhibits
A ‐ Inventory of Properties and Amenities
B ‐ Timeline
C – Formation of Organization –
Recommended Legal Steps
D ‐ Operating Agreement
E – Articles of Incorporation
F – Corporate Bylaws
G – Writing of the Organizers
H – Board of Directors Job Description
I – Start‐Up Expenditures
J – Director of Sales and Marketing Job
Description
K – President’s Selection Process and
Timeline
L – Leadership Attributes
M – President’s Position Announcement
N – Employee Benefits
O – Tourism Glossary
P – Annual Operating Budget
Q – Marketing Plan
Forms
A – Name Reservation
B – Articles of Incorporation Form
C – SS‐4
D – 8718
E – 1024
F – Application for Business Registration
G – Charitable Registration (if applicable)
H– 990
I – 990T (if applicable)
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 11
3
Executive Summary
In 2009, the St. Louis Park City Council requested City staff to explore the viability of
establishing a convention and visitors bureau for St. Louis Park given the increasing number of
hotel rooms and other amenities available within the city.
In partnership with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, the City met with each St. Louis Park
hotelier and held focus groups with community partners, including business, recreation and
educational institutions. While each stakeholder group had its own observations and
questions, several concepts became clear:
• St. Louis Park has unrealized potential for increasing its annual number of business and
leisure travelers;
• St. Louis park has a sufficient number of hotel rooms, meeting spaces, community
amenities, and attractions to accommodate such travelers;
• St. Louis Park could benefit greatly from community marketing efforts and the
coordinated services that a convention and visitors bureau could provide;
• St. Louis Park has the ability to generate sufficient revenue to support an effective
marketing initiative;
• St. Louis Park is a destination that should be marketed for all it has to offer.
Although the City introduced coordinated marketing into its general operations through the
creation of a communications division approximately three years ago, this division is tasked
with marketing the City’s services, programs, initiatives and goals to residents, business owners
and the Twin Cities at large. The City’s role is not to engage in the promotion and marketing of
private businesses, which traditionally is the role of a convention and visitors bureau.
Multiple factors support St. Louis Park as a destination for travelers. Whether it’s the pivotal
location, the variety of hotels and restaurants, or numerous attractions in and around the
community, St. Louis Park has much to offer. An initial inventory of these properties,
businesses and attractions are available for review in Exhibit A.
The creation of a convention and visitors bureau would allow St. Louis Park to increase its
market potential for attracting leisure travelers, meetings and events. The Convention and
Visitors Bureau would be charged with marketing St. Louis Park as a local, regional, national,
and international destination conveniently located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area and
to provide coordinated customer service to business and leisure travelers, area facilities,
employers and community organizations.
Given its convenient central location, St. Louis Park is increasingly being recognized as a
destination for business and leisure travelers. Yet St. Louis Park lacks the means for making the
travelling public fully aware of all that it has to offer. Currently there is no such organization
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 12
4
charged with marketing the city and packaging its venues and amenities through coordinated
effort. Such activities do not coincide with the mission of the City of St. Louis Park or that of the
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Nor are convention and visitors bureaus in nearby cities
likely to promote St. Louis Park as a destination beyond “overflow”. Area businesses have
indicated that they would appreciate the convenience of a local convention and visitors bureau
and would utilize its services so as to direct their guests to places to stay, east, shop and
recreate while in town. Local meeting, events and sports tournament organizers have likewise
expressed a need for event planning, visitor services and promotion.
The formation of the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau could strengthen awareness
of St. Louis Park as a convention and visitor destination, fulfill the community’s needs as
described above, and generate additional economic activity within the city.
Corporate Name
The corporate name shall be the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Mission Statement/Vision Statement/Values
Mission Statement: Strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park as a convention and visitor
destination to stimulate economic development and growth for the community.
Vision Statement: St. Louis Park is a uniquely vibrant destination attracting travelers of all
kinds for unforgettable experiences that must be shared.
Core Values: Our core values define the nature and quality of our relationships with our key
stakeholders. They form the foundation on which we perform and conduct ourselves. The
values underlie our work, how we interact, and which strategies we employ to fulfill our
mission.
• Passion . . . to be passionate about representing St. Louis Park’s tourism industry, our
properties and attractions, thereby delivering superior value to our stakeholders.
• Exceptional… we are committed to creating exceptional customer service that delights
our visitors.
• Integrity … to be ethically unyielding and honest, inspiring trust by saying what we
mean, matching our behaviors to our words and taking responsibility for our actions.
• Innovation . . . we are highly creative and strive to connect new ideas with business
realities
• Empowerment . . . to empower our talented people to take the initiative and to do
what’s right.
• Cooperation … we foster partnerships to achieve better results.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 13
5
Brand Identity – “Experience St. Louis Park”
According to Wikipedia, a brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company
(name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them) and how it relates to key
constituencies. Some people distinguish the psychological aspect, brand associations like
thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and so on that become
linked to the brand, of a brand from the experiential aspect.
The experiential aspect consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known
as the brand experience. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the brand image,
is a symbolic construct created within the minds of people and consists of all the information
and expectations associated with a product or service.
People engaged in branding seek to develop or align the expectations behind the brand
experience, creating the impression that a brand associated with a product or service has
certain qualities or characteristics that make it special or unique. A brand is therefore one of
the most valuable elements in an advertising theme, as it demonstrates what the brand owner
is able to offer in the marketplace. The art of creating and maintaining a brand is called brand
management. Orientation of the whole organization towards its brand is called brand
orientation.
In keeping with the mission of the City of St. Louis Park and borrowing from its brand equity, it
is the recommendation that the Bureau utilize the phrase “Experience St. Louis Park” in its
marketing efforts. Two key elements to this phrase include the following:
• Experience – an actionable word that creates a feeling. Webster’s’ Dictionary defines
“experience” as “direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of
knowledge” and/or “something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through.”
• St. Louis Park – the specific geographic area that is being marketed to travelers.
Therefore, in its simplest term, Experience St. Louis Park should be executed throughout all
marketing efforts including but limited to utilizing this as the domain address for the Bureau’s
primary marketing resource – its website.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 14
6
Implementation Timeline
In 2006, as part of Vision St. Louis Park the St. Louis Park City Council reviewed and discussed
the work of eight vision action teams which consisted of participants from throughout the
community. These groups worked for six months to develop goals, action steps, timelines, and
suggestions for additional partnerships. The teams also developed a one‐page state on what St.
Louis Park would look like in 2016 should their dreams come true.
With the involvement of more than 750 residents, workers, businesspeople, organizations and
agencies, the initiative created a roadmap for the future of the City and fostered a strong
community spirit.
Conclusions for the visioning process included a commitment to connection and engaging our
community, being a leader in environmental stewardship, providing a well‐maintained and
diverse housing stock, and promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in
all City initiatives.
What this process taught us was that this community is proud of all we have to offer and it’s
time to share all of that with the rest of our region, state and nation. A convention and visitors
bureau will allow us to accomplish that. In addition, the time is right given recent development
in St. Louis Park. Significant investments in the West End and neighboring hotel and medical
facilities have added to the community buzz and position St. Louis Park as an even stronger
destination for visitors and travelers.
The traveling public, area facilities, employers and community organizations are currently in
need of coordinated services that a convention and visitors bureau would provide, and the
sooner such an entity is organized and operating, the sooner they would benefit.
For several months city staff has been conducting research, meeting with key stakeholders, and
listening to area hospitality businesses regarding specific ideas and plans for a CVB.
Additionally, a community‐wide key stakeholder meeting was held to garner any additional
thoughts and insights to ensure that nothing was missed.
Based on all of the data and feedback, we believe that a convention and visitors bureau could
begin sales and operations efforts in early 2011. Many of the administrative tasks will begin
prior to the end of 2010 including meeting all of the necessary legal requirements but with well‐
planned road map, the CVB will should be fully‐operational including a full complement of staff
by the end of 2011. Specific details of the implementation timeline can be found in Exhibit B.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 15
7
Organization Development and Governance Recommendations
Convention and visitor bureaus are not‐for‐profit organizations (501(c)(6)) charged with
representing a specific destination and helping the long‐term development of communities
through a travel and tourism strategy. For visitors, CVBs are like a key to the city. As an
unbiased resource, Bureaus can serve as a broker or an official point of contact for convention
and meeting planners, tour operators and visitors. They assist planners with meeting
preparation and encourage business travelers and visitors alike to visit local historic, cultural
and recreational sites.
Minn State. 469.190, Subd. 1 authorizes local government the ability to adopt an ordinance
imposing a tax of up to three percent (3%) of the gross receipts of lodging at a hotel, motel,
rooming house, tourist court or resort.
Ninety‐five percent of the gross proceeds from any lodging tax must be used to fund a local
convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city as a tourist
or convention destination. According to the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General, the
tax proceeds collected are limited to expenditures for advertising or similar types of marketing
or promotion of the City as a tourist or convention center that enhances the attractiveness of
the community.
Through extensive research of convention and visitors bureaus, non‐profit organizations and
best practices, information was obtained to ensure the best potential outcome in the
development of the Bureau. The following are the recommended summary (Exhibit C) to
becoming a non‐profit organization and formalizing the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors
Bureau:
9 Step 1: Finalize the strategic purpose and mission of the Bureau.
9 Step 2: Adoption of Ordinance by St. Louis Park City Council and Review of Operating
Agreement (Exhibit D).
9 Step 3: Recruit board members.
9 Step 4: Check for availability and reserve a name.
9 Step 5: Filing of the Articles of Incorporation (Exhibit E).
9 Step 6: Review the Corporate Bylaws (Exhibit F).
9 Step 7: Hold first meeting of the board (Exhibit G for Writing of Incorporators).
9 Step 8: Apply for Federal ID Number (EIN).
9 Step 9: Obtain income tax exempt status from the IRS.
9 Step 10: Receive tax identification number.
9 Step 11: Register as a charity. (Pending verification of necessity).
9 Step 12: Annual Steps: File annual registrations.
9 IRS Form 990 — Return of Organizations Exempt from Income Tax.
9 Nonprofit Corporation Annual Registration.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 16
8
Composition of the Board of Directors
According to the recommendations as outlined in the bylaws for the St. Louis Park Convention
and Visitors Bureau, the Board of Directors shall be composed of not less than nine (9), nor
more than fifteen (15) directors appointed for a three (3) year term and shall be representative
of the following organizations and/or industries. Additionally, based upon the initial research,
discussions and review of community leadership, the following individuals are recommended to
serve on the initial board of directors within their respective categories. They include:
Category Name and Business Term
Ending
1 Hotel To Be Determined 2013
2 Hotel To Be Determined 2012
3 City of St. Louis
Park
To Be Determined 2011
4 City of St. Louis
Park
To Be Determined 2012
5 TwinWest
Chamber
To Be Determined 2012
6 Business To Be Determined 2012
7 Business To Be Determined 2013
8 At Large To Be Determined 2011
9 At Large To Be Determined 2013
10 Optional To Be Determined 2011
11 Optional To Be Determined 2012
12 Optional To Be Determined 2013
13 Optional To Be Determined 2011
14 Optional To Be Determined 2012
15 Optional To Be Determined 2013
The intent is to provide flexibility in filling positions with key stakeholders that can provide
leadership and meet the primary objectives as outlined in the board of directors’ job
description. At‐large positions are intended to provide leadership opportunities for individuals
and partners from various industries, including but not limited to St. Louis Park community
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 17
9
organizations, area businesses, professionals within the legal, accounting and finance
industries, education, area attractions, and residents that have a vested interest in seeing the
tourism industry grow and prosper in St. Louis Park.
Consideration regarding diversity within the composition of the board should also be part of
any decision making. Diversity within all categories including gender, locale of organization,
type of business or organization, expertise, cultural, ethnic, etc. should provide for a basis of
discussion to ensure a balanced representation for the Bureau’s success.
Organizational Committee Structure
Governed by the St. Louis Park Board of Directors and managed day‐to‐day by professional staff
the Bureau shall also utilize a base of core volunteers to provide oversight, guidance and
implement a variety of tasks to meet its’ mission.
Four committees are being recommended for inclusion within the organizational structure and
are listed below with definition and intent.
• Board of Directors – The St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors
shall set policy of the organization, provide governance, employ its President, and be the
fiduciary and steward or the organization. A complete job description is available as Exhibit
H.
Regular board meetings must be held no less than four times per year. During 2011, it is
recommended that the board of directors meet on a monthly basis with one of those
meetings being set aside to review current conditions and participate in strategic planning
for the coming year.
• Executive Committee ‐ The Executive Committee shall be composed of five (5) members
and include the Chair of the Board, Chair‐Elect, President, and Treasurer. The fifth (5th)
member of the Executive Committee shall be a Board member appointed by the Chair of
the Board. The Chair of the Board shall serve as the Chair of the Executive Committee and
the Committee shall act for and on behalf of the Board of Directors when the Board is not in
session or otherwise unavailable.
Additionally the Executive Committee shall provide strategic guidance to the Bureau’s
president, provide annual performance review of its President, and satisfy other
responsibilities as outlined in the organizational bylaws. The Bureau’s President shall be the
primary liaison to the Executive Committee.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 18
10
The Executive Committee shall meet once per month, or as necessary in response to
situation that requires immediate action.
• Finance Committee – The Finance Committee provides general expertise to the Bureau’s
management team, shall review the financial condition of the Bureau on a regular basis,
review and recommend the annual operating budget, and recommend fiduciary policies for
board consideration. The Bureau’s President shall be the primary liaison to the Finance
Committee.
The Finance Committee shall meet no less than four times per year.
• Marketing Committee – Comprised of primarily sales and marketing experts representing
the various hotel properties and attractions. The Marketing Committee shall meet on a
monthly basis to ensure the strategic objectives contained in the marketing plan are being
met. The Bureau’s Director of Sales and Marketing shall be the primary liaison to the
Marketing Committee.
The Chair of the Board and President may from time to time appoint task forces when
appropriate to undertake special projects as requested by the Board. The Chair of the Board
shall appoint task force chairs through the same process as committee chairs are appointed on
an annual basis. Task forces shall make their reports and recommendations pursuant to the
direction of the Board.
Physical Office Space
The main purpose of a convention and visitors bureau in St. Louis Park is to promote the
community as a year‐round destination to pre‐identified market segments and to provide
exceptional customer service to the leisure and business travelers that visit the City. A
convention and visitors bureau should provide thorough and efficient customer service with
outstanding collateral information in order to attract overnight stays, increase the length of
stays, and encourage return visits.
Initially, the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau should seek temporary space for its
office location. Perhaps space is available at City Hall or within a community‐based
organization that is willing to contribute space and resources during the start‐up phase.
Ideally, a physical office location would include a storefront presence (Visitors Center) in a
highly visible location within the community. Reasons for selecting a highly visible location
include visitor convenience, exceptional customer service delivery, and establishing
organizational credibility. Specific geographic locations may include space within the West End
area or near Excelsior and Grand.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 19
11
Occupancy costs must be a consideration in the final selection of office space. Perhaps during
the first few years, the Bureau may select an office location that is not visible but provides an
efficient and effective means of marketing the community. This space may or may not be
within the geographic locations mentioned above and would likely not be on the ground floor.
Administrative Tasks
Outside of the required legal filings and necessary corporate paperwork that must be
completed, there are hundreds of details to consider when forming a new entity. This business
plan focuses on major areas related to governance and structure, staffing, marketing,
communications, etc. However, many of the secondary, but still necessary administrative tasks
must be completed. These items may be handled by interim staff or through a contract
relationship.
The following are some thoughts related to these administrative tasks:
• Establish interim financing options in order to expedite start‐up tasks and hiring of
Bureau’s president
• Identify legal counsel that has a strong non‐profit management acumen
• Purchase domain name and its alternatives through www.godaddy.com
or other vendor
• Identify and establish a local banking relationship
• Identify a certificated professional accountant to provide general support and
review/audit requirements. Strong non‐profit expertise is essential
• Identify an insurance agent through an RFP process for General Liability, Directors and
Officer’s Insurance, and Workers’ Compensation Insurance
• Research and initiate procurement of all start‐up items listed on the FFE Listing
contained in Exhibit I
• Identify community commercial realtor to assist in office vacancy inventory
• Facilitate an RFP process for a technology vendor that includes procurement of
software, hardware and ongoing maintenance and support
• Identify telephone, internet and cable provider including installation and ongoing
service through an RFP process. Obtain 800 telephone number
• Develop an Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual including the establishment of a
chart of accounts, financial software, etc.
• Identify a payroll service to assist with employee payroll, tax payments, filings, etc.
Utilize an RFP process for vendor selection
• Research potential employee benefits packages and providers. Utilize an RFP process
for vendor selection
• Develop an Employee Handbook for Policies and Procedures
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 20
12
• Purchase adequate office supplies
• Reestablish relationship with Explore Minnesota Tourism and its connectedness
• Reestablish relationship with STR Global for hotel reports (STAR Report) and industry
information
• Create Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter accounts
• Identify organizational marketing/communications professional to assist in areas as
outlined in the communications and media strategies area of this business plan
• Develop initial media relations strategy regarding initial launch of Bureau
• Develop presentation that can be utilized during community meetings
• Research and develop relationship with Jack Rabbit, a direct on‐line booking software
vendor – www.jackrabbitsystems.com
• Establish interim account with Constant Contact to ensure immediate communications
to key stakeholder groups – www.constantcontact.com
• Research various customer relationship management software programs designed for
CVB’s. Vendor example would include www.simpleviewinc.com
Staffing and Leadership
As with many non‐profit associations, Convention and Visitors Bureaus have primarily been lead
by professional individuals with expertise in organizational development, business management
and marketing and sales. Today, staffing options for Convention and Visitors Bureaus range
from a full, direct staff, to retaining an association management organization that provides
select services, to development of a virtual organization, whereby no physical staff or location
has any presence within the community.
Based upon the research, best practices, community feedback, and primary goals and
objectives of the Bureau, the ideal organizational structure includes a full complement of
professional staff along with volunteer leadership and community support. Specific positions
should be created to carry out the mission of the organization including an outline of
responsibilities and qualifications. The composition of staff positions are based on the
objectives of the organization and the annual revenue forecasts. They include:
• President/CEO
• Director of Sales and Marketing (see Exhibit J for job posting and description)
• Administrative Assistant
• Interns ‐ unpaid
The President should be the first individual that is hired by a Search Committee comprised of
members of the Board of Directors. The Bureau should be led by a full‐time paid professional
with previous experience in association management and/or the tourism industry. The
President/CEO of the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau is responsible for the
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 21
13
general direction, management, and policy oversight of the CVB and all of its human and capital
resources. This includes responsibility for an annual budget of approximately $500,000 and its
employees and contractors. The recommended Selection Process and Timeline is available
through Exhibit K, however a summary process follows:
1. Determine and Appoint a Selection Committee
2. Committee Seeks Candidates
3. Committee Selects Candidates
4. Bureau Contacts Candidates and Obtains Information
5. Selection Committee Considers Leadership Attributes and Resumes (Exhibit L)
6. Selection Committee Interviews Candidates
7. Selection Committee Checks References
8. Selection Committee Identifies Final Candidates
9. Evaluate Candidates
10. Board Selects the New President
11. Selection Committee Notifies Candidates
The President/CEO is also expected to maintain strong relationships with and provide guidance
to St. Louis Park elected officials and members of the CVB Board of Directors, as well as serve as
the spokesperson and leader for the CVB and all tourism‐related and other relevant matters to
the customers and visitors of St. Louis Park, the business community, citizens, and the local and
global media. A full job announcement including specific job responsibilities for the President is
outlined in Exhibit M.
To be competitive in attracting talented individuals, the Bureau should consider offering
compensation that is commensurate with experience and within industry standards.
Additionally, benefits should also be offered. Specific details regarding staff compensation and
benefits is outlined in the Bureau’s annual operating budget and proposed employee benefits
are described in Exhibit N.
The following is a summary listing of the recommended benefits:
• Annual performance incentives
• Twelve days of paid personal time off (PTO) in the first year
• Seven paid holidays per year in addition to PTO
• Company contribution to employee 401K retirement savings account
• Medical insurance (flexible spending allocation)
• Dental insurance (flexible spending allocation)
• Life Insurance
• Long‐term disability insurance
• Short‐term disability insurance
• Flexible spending plan
• Tuition reimbursement
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 22
14
Assessment and Inventory of Key Stakeholders and Critical Partnerships
Key stakeholders are individuals or groups with an interest in the Bureau’s success in delivering
intended results. Stakeholders influence programs, products, and services. With the St. Louis
Park Convention and Visitors Bureau being a destination marketing organization or “community
marketer” , it has the ability to provide leadership to multiple issues and can bring great
influence impacting the economic vitality of St. Louis Park.
The Bureau’s marketing plan encompasses several different strategies including a large focus on
partnership marketing. Developing respectful and beneficial relationships will be key to the
success of the Bureau. Initially it will be important for Bureau leadership to ascertain the
importance of balancing these relationships and how to best utilize its assets. The following is a
listing of key community stakeholders and potential partnerships that Bureau leadership should
consider as part of its strategic planning:
• City of St. Louis Park
o City Staff
o Elected Officials
o Park and Recreation Department
• Hotel Representatives
o DoubleTree
o Minneapolis Marriott West
o Spring Hill Suites
o Homewood Suites
o TownePlace Suites
o Lakeland Inn
• TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
o Business Community
• HealthCare Representatives
o Park Nicollet Clinic
o Methodist Hospital
o Frauenshuh Cancer Center
o Melrose Institute
o The Emily Program
o Davita Kidney Dialysis Center
o St. Louis Park Dialysis
o Lifescan Upright, MRI
• St. Louis Park School District
• Retail Representatives – Shopping and Dining
o The West End
o Excelsior Boulevard
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 23
15
o Excelsior and Grand
o Knollwood Mall
• Tourism Related Businesses
o Metropolitan
o AAA
• Community Organizations and Representatives
o Jewish Community Center and/or Historical Society
o The Rec Center
o Festivals and Community Events
o Parktacular
o Public Art
o St. Louis Park Rotary
o Youth Sports Associations
• St. Louis Park Residents
• St. Louis Park Visitors and Convention Bureau Customers
o Leisure Travelers
o Corporate and Convention Travelers
o Group Tour Leaders
o Meeting Planners
• St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau Volunteers
• St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau Staff
• Tourism Industry Peers
o Meet Minneapolis
o Visit Minneapolis North
o Twin Cities Gateway
o Metro Area Tourism Bureaus
o Metro Area Chambers of Commerce
• Industry Associations
o Explore Minnesota
o Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI)
o Tour Minnesota Association (TMA)
o National Tour Association (NTA)
o American Bus Association (ABA)
o American Society of Association Executives (ASAE)
o American Hotel & Lodging Association
o American Society of Association Executives
o Association of Fundraising Professionals
o Convention Industry Council
o American Society for Training & Development
o Meeting Professionals International (MPI)
o Meeting Professionals International – Minnesota
o Professional Convention Management Association
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 24
16
o Society of Corporate Meeting Professionals
o Society of Incentive Travel Executives
o Minnesota Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus (MACVB)
o Midwest Society of Association Executives (MSAE)
o Twin Cities Tourism Attractions Association (TCTAA)
o Other
• Twin Cities Metro Area Attractions (see comprehensive listing in Exhibit A)
• Other
Evaluation Metrics
Accountability has truly become an integral part of any organizational culture. This is certainly
the case among Convention and Visitors Bureaus, where stakeholders ‐‐ whether they are a
Board of Directors, government entities, members, or corporate partners, are increasingly
asking CVBs to show that they are effectively using their resources to generate the greatest
possible return on investment to the local community – the ultimate stakeholder.
In the past, CVBs often found themselves challenged to respond, lacking the tools to do so in a
credible and auditable fashion that is consistent among all CVBs. As a result, CVBs’
achievements were underreported and misunderstood, a circumstance potentially damaging to
the relationship between the CVB and its stakeholders.
These assessments are necessary to guide the decision‐making process for resource
management and allocation, sales and marketing campaign development, as well as staff
training and development.
Performance reporting will also give CVBs benchmarks and a platform by which they can
compare against industry peers and clearly articulate their contribution to their stakeholders
and the local community.
Several years ago, Destination Marketing Association International defined a number of tourism
industry‐related terms and metrics, which have since been adopted by countless industry
associations and bureaus. A list of common terms used through the tourism industry can be
found as Exhibit W. (Sources for these definitions include Destination Marketing Association
International, National Tour Association, Travel Industry Association, American Association of
Advertising Agencies) Institute for Public Relations, Interactive Advertising Bureau, and
Jupitermedia.)
The following are potential metrics for consideration by the St. Louis Park Convention and
Visitors Bureau as recommend by DMAI. Additional metrics should be used based upon final
strategies contained in the marketing plan.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 25
17
Leisure Travel Activity Measures
Advertising/Promotions
1. Number of programs
2. Total reach
3. Total frequency
4. Gross impressions
5. Total value of media placed
a. Paid media dollars
b. Co‐op media dollars
c. In‐kind/Barter media dollars
d. Unpaid media dollars
6. Number of co‐op partners
Online Activity
1. Number of “play‐per‐click” keywords purchased per search engine
2. Number of web pages of content developed
Media/Public Relations
1. Media tradeshows
a. Number of media tradeshows attended
b. Number of appointments
2. Media missions
a. Number of media missions
b. Number of co‐op partners
c. Number of media contacts
3. Number of media/PR calls
4. Media familiarization tours
a. Number of familiarization tours
b. Number of journalists/media participating
c. Number of publications represented
5. Press releases
a. Number of press releases issued
b. Number distributed (incl. downloaded off CVB website) per press release
6. Number of media inquiries
7. Number of media interviews
8. Number of newsletters (incl. e‐newsletters) produced
9. Number of public service announcements (PSA) produced
10. Number of accounts with activity
Event Marketing
1. Number of events supported
2. Number of events produced
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 26
18
Leisure Travel Performance Measures
Inquiries/Fulfillment
1. Number of brochure requests
2. Number of consumer calls handled
3. Number of coupons redeemed
4. Number of people who register on the CVB’s website to receive newsletter, etc. (‘opt‐ins’)
Interactive/Online/CVB Website
1. Number of user sessions
2. Number of unique users
3. Number of repeat visits
4. Click‐throughs to the CVB website
5. Number of specific webpage view counts
6. Number of click‐throughs to member/sponsor websites from CVB website ads and/or links
7. Number of web coupons redeemed
8. Average length of session
9. Search engine referrals
a. Total number of referrals
b. Top referring search engines
c. Percent of website traffic attributable to search engine referrals
10. Search engine results’ placement of website (number of first place rankings, top five, top
ten)
Media/Public Relations
1. Placements
a. Total number of placements
b. Domestic vs. international placements
c. Broadcast vs. print placements
2. Number of impressions (circulation)
3. Advertising equivalency ($)
Bookings
1. Online/1‐800 hotel reservations
a. Number of room nights booked
b. Room booked revenue
c. Rooms sold commission
d. Average length of stay
2. Online ticket sales (e.g., attractions, tours, etc.)
a. Total tickets sold
b. Tickets sold revenue
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 27
19
c. Tickets sold commission
3. Packages
a. Total packages sold
b. Packages sold revenue
c. Packages sold commission
d. Number of room nights booked
Meeting and Convention Sales Activity Measures
1. Number of bids
2. Tradeshows attended/exhibited
a. Number of tradeshows
b. Number of co‐op partners participating
c. Co‐op monies generates
3. Sales missions (with industry partners)
a. Number of sales missions
b. Number of co‐op partners participating
c. Co‐op monies generated
4. Familiarization tours
a. Number of familiarization tours
b. Number of participants (event organizers only)
c. Number of accounts
d. Number of co‐op partners participating
e. Co‐op monies generated
5. Number of sales calls
6. Number of client site inspections
7. Client events
a. Number of client events
b. Number of participants (event organizers only)
c. Number of accounts
d. Number of co‐op partners participating
e. Co‐op monies generated
8. Sponsorships
a. Number of client events
b. Tradeshow elements/sessions
c. Monies spent
d. Number of people at sponsored events (‘customer‐exposed impressions’)
9. Number of accounts with activity
Meeting and Convention Sales Performance Measures
1. Leads
a. Number of leads
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 28
20
b. Lead room nights (estimate)
2. Bookings
a. Hotel events
• Number of bookings
• Booked room nights (estimate)
• Booked attendance (estimate)
• Booked attendee spending (estimate)
b. Citywide/Convention Center events
i. Number of confirmed bookings
• Booked room nights (estimate)
• Booked attendance (estimate)
• Booked attendee spending (estimate)
ii. Number of contracted bookings
• Booked room nights (estimate)
• Booked attendance (estimate)
• Booked attendee spending (estimate)
3. Lost opportunities
a. Number of lost opportunities
b. Reason for lost opportunity
c. Lost room nights (estimate)
d. Lost attendance (estimate)
e. Lost attendee spending (estimate)
4. Cancellations
a. Number of cancellations
b. Reason for cancellation
c. Cancelled room nights (estimate)
d. Cancelled attendance (estimate)
e. Cancelled attendee spending (estimate)
Group Tour Activity Measures
1. Tradeshows attended/exhibited
a. Number of tradeshows
b. Number of co‐op partners participating
c. Co‐op monies generated
2. Number of accounts with activity
3. Familiarization tours
a. Number of familiarization tours
b. Number of participants (travel trade only)
c. Number of accounts
d. Number of co‐op partners participating
e. Co‐op monies generated
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 29
21
4. Sales missions (with industry partners)
a. Number of sales missions
b. Number of co‐op partners participating
c. Co‐op monies generated
5. Number of sales calls
6. Client events
a. Number of client events
b. Number of participants (travel trade only)
c. Number of accounts
d. Number of co‐op partners participating
e. Co‐op monies generated
7. Number of client site inspections
8. Number of developed suggested itineraries
9. Number of packages developed
10. Sponsorships
a. Number of client events
b. Tradeshow elements/sessions
c. Monies spent
d. Number of people at sponsored events (‘customer‐exposed impressions’)
Group Tour Performance Measures
1. Leads (including confidential/internal leads)
a. Number of hotel leads
• Lead room nights (estimate)
• Number of visitors (estimate)
• Visitor spending (estimate)
b. Number of non‐hotel leads
• Number of non‐hotel leads by member category
• Number of visitors (estimate)
• Visitor spending (estimate)
2. Bookings (including confidential bookings)
a. Number of bookings from hotel leads
• Booked room nights (estimate)
• Booked visitors (estimated)
• Booked visitor spending (estimate)
b. Number of bookings from non‐hotel leads
• Booked visitors (estimated)
• Booked visitor spending (estimate)
Financial Recommendations
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 30
22
Lodging Tax and Revenue Opportunities
Minn State. 469.190, Subd. 1 authorizes local government the ability to adopt an ordinance
imposing a tax of up to three percent (3%) of the gross receipts of lodging at a hotel, motel,
rooming house, tourist court or resort.
Ninety‐five percent of the gross proceeds from any lodging tax must be used to fund a local
convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city as a tourist
or convention destination. According to the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General, the
tax proceeds collected are limited to expenditures for advertising or similar types of marketing
or promotion of the City as a tourist or convention center that enhances the attractiveness of
the community.
It is the recommendation to enact the City Ordinance which imposes a lodging tax of three
percent (3%). The majority of the Bureau’s revenue will be tax proceeds collected with minor
revenue streams of investment income, advertising sales, grants, and education programming.
In some communities, the convention and visitors bureau also offers a membership program to
enhance its revenue. Because bureau funding is directly linked to how many hotel rooms there
are in a community, budget sizes can vary greatly. To remain a valued partner with St. Louis
Park‐based community and business organizations, we do not recommend the establishment of
a membership program.
Start‐Up Expenditures
It is anticipated that approximately $80,000 will be necessary for expenditures related to start‐
up including the procurement of all furniture, fixtures, equipment, and marketing costs
including the development of a website. Exhibit O provides a detailed listing.
Budget Development
A budget depicts what you expect to spend (expenses) and earn (revenue) over a time period.
For example, they are useful in projecting how much money you'll need for a major initiative or
for hiring a new employee. They also help track whether you're on plan or not. There are
yearly (or annual or operating) budgets, cash budgets, capital budgets (for major assets, such as
equipment, buildings, etc.) and proposal budgets (for fundraising), etc. In each and every case,
it is recommended that philosophically revenue is underestimated; expenses are
overestimated.
In the development of the 2011 annual operating budget a series of assumptions was used.
Based on data contained in the STAR Report, STR Global and utilizing extremely conservative
estimates, total annual revenue could range from $457,000 to $614,000 based on current
properties and room inventory. Total revenue of approximately $553,000 was used for the
development of the budget in 2011. Additionally it should be noted that all expenditures were
budgeted for a 12‐month period; however we anticipate that many expenditures will occur only
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 31
23
during the later part of 2011. This savings can help offset start‐up fees as well as begin to build
a cash reserve.
The proposed 2011 annual operating budget is contained in Exhibit P.
Cash Flow Management
"Cash flow" management refers to the need to have cash come in ‐‐ flow in ‐‐ at the right times,
so that it is available to flow out as needed. Everyone knows that if an organization has more
expenses than income, sooner or later it will find itself in trouble. However, even if income
matches or exceeds expenses in a given year, the cash from the income may not arrive in time
to pay the bills as they come due. A cash shortage can be very disruptive to your ability to carry
out your mission. To avoid disruptions of business or to take advantage of temporary cash
surpluses, cash flow can and should be projected, monitored, and controlled.
Cash‐basis vs. Accrual basis
Cash‐basis and accrual‐basis accounting use different criteria for determining when to
recognize and record revenue and expenses in your financial records. On a cash‐basis revenues
are recognized when cash is received and deposited. Expenses are recorded in the accounting
period when bills are paid. In accrual‐basis accounting, income is realized in the accounting
period in which it is earned (e.g., once contracted services are provided, grant provisions are
met, etc.), regardless of when the cash from these fees and donations is received. Expenses are
recorded as they are owed (e.g. when supplies are ordered, the printer finishes the brochure,
employees actually perform the work, etc.), instead of when they are paid. Based on the
economic uncertainty, it is recommended that a cash basis methodology be utilized in the
development of the annual operating budget and financial recordkeeping. A final decision
should be deferred to your independent auditor.
Financial Statements
The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Account Standards No.117,
Financial Statements for Not‐for‐profit Organizations requiring nonprofits to prepare three
primary financial statements:
• Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheets)
• Statement of Activities (Income Statement)
• Statement of Cash Flows
In addition, nonprofits must provide information about expenses as reported in their functional
classifications (program services and supporting services.)
These statements should be provided to the Finance Committee for review and
recommendation as well as to the Board of Directors each month.
Organizational Audit
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 32
24
An audit is a process for testing the accuracy and completeness of information presented in an
organization's financial statements. This testing process enables an independent certified public
accountant (CPA) to issue what is referred to as an opinion on how fairly the agency's financial
statements represent its financial position and whether they comply with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP).
Some nonprofits are legally required to obtain audits. Many states require an audit for
nonprofits which receive contributions over a specified amount (the amount varies from state
to state) and/or nonprofits who hire a paid fundraiser. Nonprofits which receive $25,000 or
more in direct or pass‐through federal funding during a single fiscal year are usually required to
have an audit.
You may choose to obtain an audit even if you are not legally required to do so. However,
many funders commonly request audited financial statements. In addition to these external
requirements, the board may seek reassurance that the financial information they are
considering as part of their oversight function is accurate and complete. In cases where
financial problems or irregularities in the financial system have occurred, the board and the
general public may look to an audit to provide assurance that these problems have been
resolved. Also, the audit process can be valuable to your staff since it confirms the financial
picture and helps you strengthen internal control procedures.
A complete audit through an independent certificated public accountant is high recommended.
Unrelated Business Income Tax
All 501(c) organizations, with the exception of federal agencies, are subject to a tax on
unrelated business income. Unrelated business income is income generated by a trade or
business activity not substantially related to the exempt purpose of the organization and
regularly carried by that organization.
A trade or business activity is an activity conducted for the purpose of generating income from
the sale of merchandise or performing a service. Taxes paid by a nonprofit on unrelated
business income are paid at corporate rates. Without such a tax, nonprofits would be at a
substantial advantage in the marketplace when competing with for‐profit organizations. It
should be noted that if unrelated business gross income (income before related expenses have
been subtracted) is less than $1,000, it is not necessary to file an unrelated business tax return
(Federal Form 990T).
Communications and Media Relations Suggestions
As the primary driver to strengthen awareness of St. Louis Park as a destination for as a
convention and visitor destination and to stimulate economic development and growth for the
community, a dynamic and powerful website is critical to its success. As part of its brand, the
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 33
25
domain name of www.experiencestlouispark.com is being recommended. Alternative formats
including spelling out “st” as “saint” and obtaining the suffixes of “net” , “org”, and “mobi”
should also be considered.
Initially, the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau should identify a professional
company or companies that specialize in logo and brand development and web development.
They should retain these individuals/companies to design and produce professional
communications for the Bureau including logo development, website development, stationary,
business cards, signage, etc. that support the brand of the Bureau.
Full exploration in the development of a website is essential and one of the most important
steps that the Bureau can do during the formation of its organization. Based on research and
best practices of similar‐sized convention and visitors bureaus, the following preliminary
sitemap is being recommended for www.experiencestlouispark.com
Home
• Hotel Reservations – direct on‐line access powered through Jack Rabbit or similar
vendor relationship
• Features
• St. Louis Park Attributes and Amenities
Primary Navigation
• Accommodations – description, amenities and hot links of the six hotel properties
• Explore – sub‐categories listing with paid links contained on following pages
• Events – interactive community calendar
• Shopping & Dining – local and immediate area options with optional paid links
• Group Tours – services available, brief description, incentive packages, and electronic
questionnaire
• Meeting Planners – services available, facilities, brief description, incentive packages,
and electronic questionnaire
• Sports – amateur and professional sports connections, descriptions, and electronic
questionnaire
• Caregivers – description of medical community in St. Louis Park with hot links
• Maps & Guides – community and metro area maps, directions, transportation resources
Secondary
• Customer Connection
• Weather
• City Information – brief summary of St. Louis Park with hot link to www.stlouispark.org
• News ‐ media releases, trends, industry information
• About Us – history, board of directors, staff
• Contact Us – electronic questionnaire
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 34
26
• Keyword/Advanced Search
• Photo Gallery
• Deals and Packages
• Downloadable Collateral Materials – audio/visual
• Partnership Links
• Social Media Connections
• Site Map
• Privacy
The anticipated cost and timeline to produce a website for the Bureau are approximately
$18,000 to $25,000 and three months of preparation, planning and testing prior to launch with
a primary representative working with the selected vendor. Strategic plans surrounding social
media should also be part of any brand management and marketing strategy.
Additional marketing and public relations strategies can be found in the Bureau’s Marketing
Plan.
Finally the development of an initial media relations strategy regarding initial launch of Bureau
should be considered to ensure community support and a positive start to being “open for
business”.
Marketing Strategies and Services
The creation of a convention and visitors bureau would allow St. Louis Park to realize its market
potential for attracting travelers, meetings and events. Charged with marketing St. Louis Park
as a destination on a local, regional and national level creates a greater awareness of all the
amenities and offerings available in the marketplace. In cooperation and consultation with its
community partners, the Bureau broad‐based services could influence the following:
• promoting St. Louis Park as a destination for the leisure traveler;
• develop St. Louis Park as a meetings and convention destination;
• stimulate economic growth in the community in collaboration with the EDA;
• market all the amenities the community offers; and
• provide exceptional customer service
Leisure Travel
Studies show that in the leisure travel market, consumers are planning shorter, regional
vacations to drive markets, which bodes well for St. Louis Park. Ensuring that St. Louis Park is
thought of as a great destination” will require innovative marketing such as direct advertising
and promotions which will dovetail on the recent success and media coverage on the Shops at
West End and Excelsior and Grand. Consideration should also be given to leveraging
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 35
27
partnerships to boost regional marketing efforts with travel packaging. Whether it’s an
individual, a family or a group tour, St. Louis Park is a destination for all to experience.
Meetings and Conventions
St. Louis Pak has many facilities within the community that can service meeting and small
convention markets. This untapped opportunity provides great dividends to hospitality related
area businesses. Primary target market segments include state, regional and local business
associations, medical, sports and recreation groups, and religious and multi‐cultural
organizations.
St. Louis Park, with its close proximity to the Minneapolis Convention Center, could also be
promoted as an auxiliary location for larger national and international conventions.
Economic Growth
A convention and visitors bureau could work with the community’s Economic Development
Authority (EDA) to promote economic growth in the community. With the EDA fostering the
development, redevelopment and revitalization of the business centers in St. Louis Park, while
working to retain its base of existing businesses, the convention and visitors bureau could also
augment efforts to recruit businesses that are complimentary to the community.
Marketing and Communications
An effective convention and visitors bureau requires a strong marketing and communications
plan. The convention and visitors bureau would maximize its advertising dollars by actively
pursuing national, regional and local media coverage through press releases, media and
familiarization tours, and develop a strong interactive web and social media presence, as well
as traditional print and broadcast media.
Customer Service
A St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau would ensure that travelers enjoy St. Louis Park
to the fullest extent possible to stimulate return visits. It would focus on development
relationships with local, regional and national meeting planners, including sports and recreation
markets, in addition to servicing the individual tourist. As customer expectations require
sophisticated services to maintain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, a convention
and visitors bureau would need to deliver exceptional levels of personal assistance to all who
utilize their services. The Bureau could also lead efforts in customer service focused training
and education for employees as well as develop an effective “secret shopper” program in order
to improve service throughout tourism‐related businesses.
Key strategies have been developed for inclusion in a comprehensive marketing plan (Exhibit
Q). These strategies include:
• Develop a marketing program that encompasses measurable results and meets the
strategic objectives of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 36
28
• Develop a powerful website which will be used as the primary information portal and
marketing resource.
• Initiate efforts toward creating an experience in St. Louis Park for all travelers including
a promise of exceptional customer service.
• Communicate the importance of the tourism industry and its economic impact on the
community.
General Conclusions
Why a St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau?
• St. Louis Park has unrealized potential for increasing its annual number of business and
leisure travelers;
• St. Louis park has a sufficient number of hotel rooms, meeting spaces, community
amenities, and attractions to accommodate such travelers;
• St. Louis Park could benefit greatly from community marketing efforts and the
coordinated services that a convention and visitors bureau could provide;
• St. Louis Park has the ability to generate sufficient revenue to support an effective
marketing initiative;
• St. Louis Park is a destination that should be marketed for all it has to offer.
The creation of a convention and visitors bureau allows St. Louis Park to realize its market
potential for attracting leisure travelers, meetings and events. The Convention and Visitors
Bureau would be charged with marketing St. Louis Park as a local, regional, national, and
international destination conveniently located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area and to
provide coordinated customer service to business and leisure travelers, area facilities,
employers and community organizations.
Now is the time to strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park as a convention and visitor
destination to stimulate economic development and growth for the community.
Experience St. Louis Park!
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 37
1
Experience St. Louis Park
2011 Sales and Marketing Plan ‐ DRAFT
Mission Statement – Draft
Strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park as a convention and visitor destination to stimulate
economic development and growth for the community.
Situational Overview
Despite the economic challenges to consumers and businesses from around the globe, tourism remains
a vital component to the overall economy. Leisure travel remains a high priority for the consumer and
businesses must continue to “do business”. With that in mind, the St. Louis Park is poised to
successfully begin a strategic, coordinated marketing effort through the establishment of a Convention
and Visitors Bureau.
Following extensive research, a discovery phrase with key community stakeholders, and community
forums, the St. Louis Park City Council will consider implementation of an ordinance imposing a tax of up
to three percent (3%) of the gross receipts of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court or
resort (Minn. Stat. 469.190, Subd1) in the Fall of 2010. Based on final organizational efforts, the St.
Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau will be open for business in Winter 2011.
Just the Facts ‐ 2008
ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
Travel/tourism in Minnesota generates:
• $11.2 billion in leisure & hospitality gross sales
• $695 million in state sales tax (revised April 2010)
CONTRIBUTING TO THE ECONOMY
• Travelers in Minnesota spend more than $33 million a day.
• Travel/tourism impacts virtually every industry and area in Minnesota, from accounting and
manufacturing to tour operators and zoos.
• The leisure and hospitality industry accounts for 16% of Minnesota’s state sales tax.
• Tourism is comparable to agriculture in its contributions to the gross state product.
GROWTH IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
• Sales at leisure and hospitality businesses grew 38% from 2000 to 2008
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
• Every $1 invested in state tourism marketing returns an estimated:
• $53 in gross sales
• $20.40 in wages
• $4.60 in state and local taxes
TRAVELER SPENDING BY SECTOR
Spending during Minnesota’s 39 million annual person‐visits is distributed throughout the economy:
• Shopping 25%
• Recreation 25%
• Food 24%
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 38
2
• Lodging 14%
• Transportation 12%
TRAVELER EXPENDITURES BY SEASON
• 24% ‐ Winter (Dec‐Mar)
• 25% ‐ Fall (Sept‐Nov)
• 14% ‐ Spring (Apr‐May)
• 37% ‐ Summer (Jun‐Aug)
TOURISM EMPLOYMENT
Tourism means jobs in communities across Minnesota. The leisure and hospitality industry accounts for:
• 245,788 full‐ and part‐time jobs
• $4.0 billion in wages
• 10.7% of the state’s total private sector employment
GROWTH IN LEISURE & HOSPITALITY JOBS
• Gross sales for Hennepin County in 2008 were $3,704,919,576
• State sales for the same period in Hennepin County totaled @233,764,102
• Hennepin County boosted 74,193 jobs in the leisure and hospitality industry during 2008
Sources: Explore Minnesota Tourism, spring/summer 2000; The Economic Impact of Expenditures by Travelers on Minnesota,
June 2007‐May 2008, Davidson‐Peterson Associates; Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2008; Minnesota Department
of Employment and Economic Development, 2008; Bureau of Labor Statistics
Why St. Louis Park?
• St. Louis Park has unrealized potential for increasing its annual number of business and leisure
travelers
• St. Louis park has a sufficient number of hotel rooms, meeting spaces, and community amenities
to accommodate such travelers;
• St. Louis Park could benefit greatly from community marketing efforts and the coordinated
services that a convention and visitors bureau could provide;
• Appropriate levels of financial support would be likely for a convention and visitors bureau in St.
Louis Park.
• St. Louis Park is a destination that should be marketed for all it has to offer.
Location – Location ‐ Location
St. Louis Park offers a central location within the first inner ring of the Twin Cities that is convenient and
safe. Located immediately west of Minneapolis, the city is less than five miles from downtown and only
15 minutes from the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. From St. Louis Park, commuters enjoy
direct access to I‐394, US169, SH7, SH100 as well as close proximity to I‐494 and SH62.
Given its ease of access, meeting and event planners are increasingly aware of St. Louis Park as a
desirable hub for functions and overnight stays. Within the next few years, getting to and from St. Louis
Park will be even easier when the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) is completed with three stations
providing direct access to downtown Minneapolis. These stations will be located in proximity to
Highway 25 and Belt Line Boulevard, Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue, and Louisiana Avenue and
Oxford Street.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 39
3
As a result of its pivotal location, St. Louis Park is a convenient place to hold an event or meeting and is
home to one of the largest offerings of hotel rooms located outside of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. The
community augments these offerings with a growing and unique mix of amenities that lure the traveler
including free parking, convenience, and value‐added travel savings.
Key Strategies
• Develop a marketing program that encompasses measurable results and meets the strategic
objectives of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
• Develop a powerful website which will be used as the primary information portal and marketing
resource.
• Initiate efforts toward creating an experience in St. Louis Park for all travelers including a
promise of exceptional customer service.
• Communicate the importance of the tourism industry and its economic impact on the
community.
TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING AND PUBLICATIONS
Implement traditional advertising tactics to promote awareness of St. Louis Park as a travel destination,
take advantage of media partnerships, develop consumer based publications, and promote the
following marketing goals:
• Develop a comprehensive visitor’s guide which provides information and creates awareness of
St. Louis Park.
• Record and continually increase website traffic
• Record and increase inquires
• Develop and increase e‐newsletter subscriptions
• Create and enhance partnership opportunities
• Record and increase awareness levels
Tactics
Direct Mail
Execute select direct mail initiatives, with fulfillment based on current publication distribution needs.
Secure mailing lists through purchase and data gathering according to general target audience
demographics.
Metrics
• Response rate with minimum goal of ten percent (10%).
Magazines
Place small space magazine cooperative ads to promote general amenities and gain inquiry through
reader service.
Metrics
• Magazine circulation, geographic targeting to the Midwest, availability of reader service, and
estimate cost per inquiry.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 40
4
Online Banner Advertising
Online banner ads supplement traditional media buys as added value and drive consumers. Banner ads
are placed on local media sites, tourism resource sites, and vertical activities (biking, golf, professional
sports, etc.)
Metrics
• Impressions, click‐through, conversions tracked for each online buy
• Track referral traffic from other sites
Television and Radio
To be determined based on cost and effectiveness within specific target markets.
INTERACTIVE MARKETING
The community’s travel website, www.experiencestlouispark.com is the primary online information
resource for the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. Advertising and publications direct
travelers to this site and connect consumers to current information and real‐time reservations systems.
Paid keyword searches further drive travelers and increasingly, tourism is being directed through various
social media sites and blogs.
Tactics
Website: experiencestlouispark.com
• Provide timely news, travel ideas, and information to generate interest in experiencing St. Louis
Park.
• Provide detailed information for planning trips, including lodging, events, attractions, and
accommodation deals.
• Offer e‐newsletters and electronic versions of all publications.
• Optimize the Web site (content, tags, etc.) to raise rankings on search engines.
• Solicit business to take advantage of free listings or increase revenue through expanded
advertising.
• Monitor the number of trip planner subscribers.
• Encourage links from other sites to increase Web traffic.
Metrics
• User sessions and page views on Web site
• Google analytics for referral traffic and trip planner details
• Search engine optimization outcomes
Paid Keyword Search
• Identify key words to direct consumers using Google, Yahoo or MSN search engines to specific
content on www.experiencestlouispark.com
• Target words to specific holidays, events or niche market opportunities
Metrics
• Maintain a cost‐per‐click (CPC) at an average of $.35
• Written recap for total monthly expenditures, impressions, clicks, CPC and top search terms
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 41
5
Social Media
• Use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others to distribute timely marketing messages
• Create blogs for conversations on to push content
• Explore marketing opportunities such as blogs, Internet forums, social networking sites,
message boards and other forums that feature multi‐way conversations
Metrics
• Monitor Web traffic from social media sites
• Achieve a pre‐determined number of fans on Facebook and followers on Twitter
• Follow and monitor the distribution of messaging
PARTNERSHIP SALES AND MARKETING
Coordination within the tourism industry, hospitality and attractions stakeholders, state tourism office,
and public and private sector partners allows St. Louis Park to compete and leverage each partner’s
assets. Increasing marketing activities and promotions among key audiences through these types of
coordinated partnerships will be critical to the success of the Bureau.
Tactics
• Coordinate efforts to extend reach and impact in the market and avoid duplication.
• Develop shared marketing efforts with various attractions and community organizations
throughout the Twin Cities area.
• Develop marketing partnerships focusing on vertical markets, such as cultural heritage, medical,
biking, golf, etc.
• Offer cooperative and promotional opportunities to the industry through various advertising
tactics.
• Participate in a variety of tourism related associations and community based organizations
including but not limited membership within:
o Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI)
o Twin Cities Tourism Attractions Association (TCTAA)
o Minnesota Association of Convention & Visitors Bureaus (MACVB)
o Explore Minnesota
o Tour Minnesota Association (TMA)
o National Tour Association (NTA)
o American Bus Association (ABA)
o Midwest Society of Association Executives (MSAE)
o TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
o St. Louis Park Rotary Club
o Other
• Provide support to various community‐based organizations and events that increase tourism
and provide value to St. Louis Park
• Research and explore potential “high profile” events that could be developed for St. Louis Park
to enhance the attractions available and attract additional visitors and meeting travelers.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 42
6
Examples of such events would include Uptown Art Fair, Winter Carnival, Twin Cities Marathon,
etc.
• In cooperation with the hotels and other tourism‐related businesses, develop unique
partnership opportunities within their facilities to capture the traveler’s attention, providing
information in order to expand their stay and experience. An example may include electronic
photo albums that provide information and visuals promoting attractions, events, etc.
Metrics
• Number of participants in cooperative marketing programs
• Total financial savings based on cooperative efforts
• Expansion of reach due to partnership marketing
• Inquiries generated by regional cooperative marketing
• Inquiries generated through marketing partnerships
• Amount of in‐kind and cash contributions
MEDIA RELATIONS
Media relations programs are designed to position St. Louis Park as a favorable alternative with local,
regional and national media. The Convention and Visitors Bureau works to generate coverage in print,
electronic and broadcast media.
Tactics
• Develop and maintain media database consisting of contacts from throughout the Upper
Midwest region.
• Provide regular contact with news media outlets regarding economic development efforts and
trends associated with tourism in St. Louis Park.
• Submit timely and compelling story ideas to travel writers and editors.
• Distribute regular e‐mails to media contacts regarding current news and events.
• Generate coverage through direct events and news as well as through other vertical activities in
St. Louis Park by providing support at high‐profile events sponsored by other organizations.
Metrics
• Track contacts with media
• Monitor coverage of travel topics in the media
LEISURE TRAVEL: SALES AND MARKETING
Tourism is an $11.2 billion industry in Minnesota and the leisure and hospitality industry employs more
than 245,000 Minnesotans. Defined as individuals and families traveling for pleasure, the leisure market
comes primarily from Canada and the Midwestern states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota
and South Dakota.
An Explore Minnesota Tourism study completed in 2004 demonstrated that shopping, scenic touring
and visiting friends and relatives were the most important activities of non‐Minnesotans traveling within
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 43
7
the state. Nationally, shopping is the number one activity for domestic travelers, followed by outdoor
activities and visiting museums and/or historic sites.
Due to the completion of several major economic development projects in St. Louis Park, the area now
boosts a strong shopping product. Along with its adjacent proximity to downtown Minneapolis and
numerous other amenities, St. Louis Park can offer the leisure traveler an experience they soon won’t
forget.
Tactics
• The St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau publishes a consumer‐based destination guide
to generate travel by providing trip ideas and travel planning information, and to link the leisure
traveler to tourism‐based businesses and organizations through advertising.
• Purchase lists of consumers who have contacted Explore Minnesota Tourism for travel
information needs.
• Designation as an affiliate to Explore Minnesota Tourism for distribution of state travel
publications.
• Develop a branding technique for all efforts directed in key geographic markets.
• Participate in cooperative advertising with neighboring CVBs and Minnesota Office of Tourism.
Such advertising could include but not be limited to:
o Minnesota Travel Guide
o Minnesota Explorer Travel Newspaper
o Minneapolis Saint Paul Area Playbook
• Seek out marketing partnerships with area attractions and businesses located throughout the
Twin Cities metropolitan area.
• Develop relationship with Minnesota Office of Tourism, working with its travel counselors,
Travel Information Centers, and the Explore Minnesota store at the Mall of America to keep
these travel representatives aware of St. Louis Park.
• Create an electronic email/e‐news resource for leisure travelers to ensure they receive multiple
contacts annually and bring them back for extended stays.
• Explore various tradeshows/sales mission opportunities to participate in to create awareness of
St. Louis Park as a leisure destination.
Metrics
• Track the number of publications and electronic communications being distributed through all
methods as outlined.
• Increase the total percentage of occupancy and revenue generated within the cumulative
number of hotel rooms located in St. Louis Park.
• Increase the number of partnerships and cooperative advertising opportunities.
• Establish relationships with Explore MN through active participation and membership with
various tourism‐related councils, committees, and events.
GROUP TOUR SALES AND MARKETING
North American group and packaged travel, including the United States and Canada are organized by
tour operators, charter bus companies, and group leaders who are selling a destination or a combination
of destinations within specialized itinerary. An individual group leader may purchase a packaged tour
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 44
8
through a tour operator or organize his/her own group tour. Travel is most often by motor coach and
tours can range in age categories from high school to seniors.
Tactics
• Generate awareness and a positive image of St. Louis Park among prospective group tour
planners.
• Develop an online strategy to assist group tour operators in tour planning.
• Participate in regional tradeshows attended by tour operators, bus companies and group
leaders.
• In partnership with Explore Minnesota Tourism, participate in annual sales conventions with the
National Tour Association (NTA) and American Bus Association (ABA).
• Advertise in the Group and Packaged Travel Planner through Explore Minnesota.
• Co‐sponsor familiarization tours organized by Explore Minnesota Tourism. These trips for
domestic tour operators familiar them with Minnesota destinations and provide information
they need to develop group tours to our state. Co‐sponsors must provide complimentary
lodging, meals, attractions and guide services, participate in itinerary development and
accommodate a group of 40.
• In cooperation with Explore Minnesota Tourism and tourism industry partners, participate in
various group tour trade shows which may include some of the following:
o American Bus Association Convention
o Heartland Travel Showcase
o Heritage Club International
o Jack Rabbit Tour & Travel Show
o International Motor coach Group Meeting
o Student and Youth Travel Association
o National Tour Association Convention
• Develop a group page with www.experiencestlouispark.com
• Develop a group tour newsletter to market new itinerary ideas and attractions.
• Enlist several volunteers to aid in group tour efforts including the creation and solicitation of gift
bags, guest services, etc.
• Research and develop if appropriate “packages” that can be marketed to group tour operators,
making St. Louis Park an attractive destination and unique experience among their many
choices.
• Research methods to track group tour visitation and economic impact on the local economy.
Metrics
• St. Louis Park shall carve a strong niche in this market and be recognized as a leader in the Twin
Cities for attracting group tours.
• Industry participation in shows, sales missions and fam tours.
• Number of quality leads from trade shows
• Web analytics
• Inquiries from tour operators
• Media coverage in travel trade publications
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 45
9
MEETINGS AND CONVENTIONS SALES AND MARKETING
The St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau will market the multiple amenities available to
meeting and convention guests. Whether it’s an individual meeting with a local business executive,
meeting planners working to accommodate an annual meeting with 100 attendees or a major
convention looking to come to the Twin Cities, St. Louis Park is perfectly positioned to create a unique
experience. Typically meeting space, overnight guest rooms and catering are part of the package.
Several properties in St. Louis Park can accommodate meetings and conventions and offer a wide array
of amenities and attractions. St. Louis Park can be competitive for meetings, and national or statewide
conventions against several other metro communities. Additionally, corporate retreats, weddings, and
similar events are a good market for St. Louis Park due to its geographic proximity to downtown
Minneapolis and the MSP International Airport.
Tactics
• Develop a meeting planner sales department, whereby the following array of complimentary
services can be offered:
o Research meeting space availability and rates
o Research corporate rates for groups of 10 or more
o Secure room blocks
o Site inspections
o Resource guide
o Attraction information for pre and post conference activities
o Welcome packets for conference attendees (visitor guides, maps, and coupon books)
o Bid proposals and presentations
o Registration assistance
• Develop a meeting and convention planner resource section on
www.experiencestlouispark.com
• Position St. Louis Park as an alternative for small to mid‐size meetings and conventions among
the Twin Cities metro meetings market.
• Advertise in select Twin Cities meetings publications including but not limited to:
o Minnesota Meetings & Events Resource Directory
o Midwest Meetings Annual Guide Book
o Minnesota’s Hospitality Journal
o Minnesota Meetings & Events
o Local community organizations publications
• Partner with St. Louis Park‐based meeting/convention facilities to increase marketing
capabilities.
• Develop e‐news marketing publication for distribution to meeting planners, associations, etc.
• Participate in the RFP program through Explore Minnesota Tourism to receive direct information
from parties interested in hosting a meeting in Minnesota.
• Participate in appropriate MeetinMinnesota efforts based on current activities and successes,
sponsored by Explore Minnesota Tourism.
• Maintain database of meeting planners and existing convention contacts.
• Participate in local and regional groups such as Midwest Society of Association Executives
(MSAE) to create awareness of St. Louis Park as a meeting destination.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 46
10
• Research and develop if appropriate “packages” that can be marketed to meeting planners,
making St. Louis Park an attractive destination and unique experience among their many
choices.
• Through active community relations efforts, develop small business and corporate relations with
existing companies to expand awareness of St. Louis Park as a meeting destination.
Metrics
• Lead generation through multiple marketing channels.
• Track inquires from traditional means and web analytics.
• Direct contact with corporations and associations booking meetings/convections in St. Louis
Park and adjacent communities.
• Develop report on new meetings and conventions that includes information such as number of
delegates, guest rooms, welcome packet distribution and other economic impact calculations.
SPORTS SALES AND MARKETING
Because sports marketing has been identified as a growth area of Minnesota’s tourism efforts, coupled
with St. Louis Park’s geographic proximity to downtown Minneapolis and local facilities, the Convention
and Visitors Bureau has identified this as one of two niche opportunities.
Tactics
• Develop and promote a web‐based resource of information about sports facilities and related
events and organizations.
• Assist local organizations and event owners with recruiting tournaments to the community.
• Participate in sports‐related trade shows to promote awareness of St. Louis Park as a
destination. Examples may include markets within Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa.
• Coordinate with local associations to create and distribute press materials to sports media
contacts.
• Research and develop if appropriate “packages” that can be marketed to sports enthusiasts,
making St. Louis Park an attractive destination and unique experience among their many
choices.
Metrics
• Number of listings in sports marketing database
• Increase in the number of local tournaments over existing events
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 47
11
MEDICAL SALES AND MARKETING
With several renowned medical facilities located within St. Louis Park, many visitors are friends, family
members and caregivers spending time with loved ones. Through a coordinated effort with the medical
facilities and other community organizations, the Convention and Visitors Bureau will provide quality‐
assured customer service and resources to enhance their experience.
Tactics
• Develop and promote a web‐based resource of information about the medical facilities and
resources available to caregivers and visitors.
• Coordinate with local medical facilities to create and distribute materials to visitors. These
facilities may include:
o Park Nicollet Clinic
o Methodist Hospital
o Frauenshuh Cancer Center
o Melrose Institute
o The Emily Program
o Davita Kidney Dialysis Center
o St. Louis Park Dialysis
o Lifescan Upright, MRI
Metrics
• Track the number of visitors, unique page views and click through within the medical resources
area on www.experiencestlouispark.com
• Track the distribution of printed materials.
• Track the number of inquiries regarding this niche market.
INTERNATIONAL SALES AND MARKETING
During the early stages of organization development, the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau
shall direct international marketing efforts through a cooperative approach with the Minnesota Tourism
office. Minnesota’s target markets include Canada, United Kingdom, Japan, China, Germany, Norway,
Sweden, and Denmark. The state’s international marketing program works to increase the number of
international visitors, extend the length of stay, and expand the product offerings.
Tactics
• Cooperative participation in shows, sales missions, ad busy and fam tours with tourism partners
and the Minnesota Tourism Office.
• Implementation of other tactics as described in leisure travel and meetings and conventions.
Metrics
• Document international traveler information within other metrics as outlined in the marketing
plan.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 48
12
MISCELLANOUS TACTICS FOR SALES AND MARKETING
Whether they remain in a short term or long‐term strategic plan, several additional areas of work can be
lead by the Bureau to enhance overall marketing efforts and effectively impact the economic
environment of St. Louis Park.
Tactics
Travel Information Network
Establish St. Louis Park as an additional travel information center within the Twin Cities area through
relationships with Explore Minnesota Tourism. Currently six travel information centers are located on
major interstate highways and four operate on trunk highways throughout the state. The newest
endeavor could be located within St. Louis Park via an interstate or at a multi‐modal hub designated
area.
Metrics
• Creation of a travel center prior to 2015.
Grant Programs
Provide partnerships grants and incentives to attract new leisure travelers and meeting/conventions to
the area and leverage assets with other community organizations and tourism‐related businesses.
Metrics
• Project by project basis
• Survey of grant recipients and users to estimate return on investment.
Education, Policy and Research
Creating a general awareness on the overall economic impact of tourism is critical to garner overall
support of the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau. Positioning itself as a thought leader
within the community, the Bureau can achieve success and in return can educate and advocate on
behalf of the tourism industry.
Metrics
Key stakeholder satisfaction surveys.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c)
Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging Tax Page 49
- 1 - Proposed EAGAN CVB Performance Goals and Measures No Goal Measures Tracking Methods 1 Increase in lodging tax collections. Total lodging tax collection by the City. This is the single most effective measure of CVB performance. It’s currently collected data and is reported by the City’s CFO (auditable). Tracking Method: City’s monthly payables report. 2 Increased lodging sales during spring, fall & winter months. Compare year-to-year occupancy rates, ADR and revenue per room (rev par). Numbers from all three categories can easily be collected and compared against previous years. Information currently collected by CVB and will be verified using the STR report every fourth year. Tracking Method: CVB’s monthly/yearly ADR/rev par reports. 3 Increased number of meetings & conventions. Tally the number of meetings and conventions booked in the City. Number of events booked (results, not activity) through or as a result of CVB efforts measures the CVB’s meeting/corporate travel sales marketing success (auditable). Tracking Method: Meetings activity reports generated through ACT! 4 Help the City’s restaurants, attractions, events and venues benefit from tourism. Track the number of coupons, advertisements and other promotions restaurants, attractions, events and venues participate/are listed in. Grid will be created listing all of the promotional aspects restaurants, attractions, events and venues are listed in – “Impact” report outlining the aforementioned aspects will be mailed to hospitality industry annually. Tracking Method: Newly created “Impact” report. 5 Create greater economic impact. Calculate economic impact through a comprehensive study. Outside firm will perform study every four years beginning in 2008 – comparably sized communities from across the nation will be identified and used in comparison. Tracking Method: Tourism Research firm or U of M Tourism Center. 6 Improved ROI. Ratio of economic impact to CVB spending. Associated research and methodology are auditable. Tracking Method: CVB’s monthly inquiry report. 7 Increased number of travel groups booked. Number of groups booked at lodging properties and/or venues in the City. Number of bookings measures the CVB’s PR/events/group/sports travel sales marketing success. Total number of bookings will be compared to total inquiries – lost business will also be tracked along with explanations. Tracking Method: Group activity reports generated through ACT! 8 Enhance CVB’s marketing and PR functions. Track CVB’s Web site activity, distribution of news releases, attendance at travel writer shows. Destination Marketing Organization Int’l (DMOI) standard media tracking criteria will be used (news releases/video clips distributed vs. coverage, travel show attendance/pitches, Web site statistics, fam tours conducted, newsletters/direct mail pieces distributed). Tracking Method: Newly created “Communications Activity” report. City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging TaxPage 50
- 2 - Fargo CVB Performance Goals and Measures Goal Metrics Comments To measure and increase the numbers in the metrics Annual Room Night Goals Trade Shows Sales Call Goals We need to keep in mind that we’re selling a product that we (A) don’t control, (B) can’t price, (C) can’t guarantee the quality and no one comes to us with money so numbers of transactions always boil down to estimates. I’d advise against trying to measure things like hotel occupancy, ADR or amount of lodging tax collected because these are largely outside of your ability to control. For instance, hotel occupancy can be affected by the hotel’s aggressiveness in sales, by pricing, by the economy, by the events coming to other parts of the Twin Cities, etc. And lodging tax collections can be affected by whether the properties are remitting the tax quickly or dragging their feet. These are more a measure of the state of the industry. And good luck trying to measure visitors. That’s a guess unless you put 5 figures of your budget into primary research to survey. I’m not sure how your budget will break down but we have to be a full-service CVB so a bunch of our money goes into paying sales people, traveling to trade shows, and out-of-town sales calls. We also have an aggressive philosophy of event services while groups are in town. The largest part of our budget is oriented to group room night sales and service. The smallest part of our budget is leisure advertising which may be the largest part of yours, depending on your lodging mix. That will require a different set of metrics. City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Second Reading - Ordinance Providing for a Local Lodging TaxPage 51
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Property Tax Levies,
2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan and 2011 Utility Rates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2010 Revised General and Park and Recreation Fund
Budgets, 2011 Budgets and authorizing the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2011 Final HRA Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution adopting the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2011 Utility Rates
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire to adopt the 2010 Revised General and Park and Recreation
Fund Budgets, and 2011 Budgets for General, Park and Recreation, Enterprise, Internal
Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds?
• Does the City Council desire to adopt the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy at $23,363,472,
which is an increase of $898,074, or 4.00% over 2010?
• Does the City Council desire to authorize the full 0.0185% of taxable market value
allowable for HRA purposes to assist in paying for infrastructure needs in redeveloping
areas? If so, the 2011 Final HRA Levy authorized is $1,028,888, which is a decrease of
$14,453 or 1.39% less than 2010.
• Does the City Council desire to adopt the 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
• Does the City Council desire to set the 2011 Utility Rates as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
2011 General Property Tax Levy
Over the past several months continued discussions regarding the 2011 Budget have taken place
with the City Council. On September 7, 2010 the City Council adopted a resolution and set the
Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $23,562,306, which is an increase of $1,096,913, or 4.88%
from 2010. The Truth in Taxation Public Hearing was held on Monday December 6, 2010
during the regular City Council meeting with information reflecting the 4.88% levy increase.
Based on the City Council study session on December 13, 2010, the Council provided direction
to decrease the Final Property Tax Levy from $23,562,306 down to $23,363,467. The amount of
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
$23,363,467 to be certified to Hennepin County is an increase of $898,074, or 4.00% compared
to 2010.
Below is information as it pertains to the 2011 Total Ad Valorem Levy with Special Levies and
how those tax dollars are planned to be segregated among various funds:
2010 2011 Dollar Change Percent Change
Levy Final 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 1,519,000 709,000 87.53%
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 $23,363,467 $898,074 4.00%
2011 HRA Levy
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council has elected to use the levy
proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the
HRA levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analysis for future
improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and
redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future
particularly for transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana and possibly the
Highway 100 reconstruction, it is recommended that the HRA levy continue to be set at the
maximum allowed by law for the 2011 budget year.
The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. The EDA is requested to
approve the HRA Levy on December 20, 2010 before the Regular City Council meeting. As
outlined in the resolution, the HRA levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of
the City. Therefore, the maximum HRA Levy for 2011 is $1,028,888. This is a $14,453
decrease, or 1.39% less from the 2010 HRA Levy of $1,043,341.
General and Park and Recreation Fund Revenue and Expenditure Summary Budget Data
The following two pages depict summaries of revenues and expenditures for the General and
Park and Recreation Funds:
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Revenues
2010 2011 Dollar % Change
Final Requested Change Final to '11
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 14,889,605$ 15,426,072$ 536,467 3.60%
Licenses and Permits 2,294,768 2,345,910 51,142 2.23%
Intergovernmental 1,598,787 1,136,187 (462,600) -28.93%
Charges for Services 1,138,018 1,152,642 14,624 1.29%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 311,750 328,200 16,450 5.28%
Investment Earnings 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 101,600 104,900 3,300 3.25%
Transfers In 2,583,825 2,589,876 6,051 0.23%
Use of Fund Balance 51,000 - (51,000) -100.00%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,169,353$ 23,283,787$ 114,434 0.49%
Appropriations 23,169,353$ 23,283,787$ 114,434 0.49%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations -$ (0)$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ (14,311) -0.36%
Licenses and Permits 6,275 6,600 325 5.18%
Intergovernmental 71,219 77,652 6,433 9.03%
Charges for Services 1,073,900 1,095,250 21,350 1.99%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties - - - 0.00%
Investment Earnings - - - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 919,900 952,400 32,500 3.53%
Transfers In - - - 0.00%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.76%
Appropriations 6,086,166$ 6,132,463$ 46,297 0.76%
Net Revenue Over (Under)
Appropriations (0)$ 0$
Grand Totals:29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731$ 0.55%
GRAND TOTAL REVS OVER EXPENDITURES:(0)$
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2010 2011 Dollar % Change
and Activity Final Requested Change Final to '11
General Government:
Administration/Legislative/Human Resources 1,569,422$ 1,542,570$ (26,853) -1.71%
Communications & Marketing 281,905 294,470 12,565 4.46%
Community Outreach 86,255 88,515 2,260 2.62%
Information Resources 1,400,666 1,394,226 (6,440) -0.46%
Accounting/Assessing 1,078,930 1,113,106 34,176 3.17%
Community Development 1,051,150 1,094,186 43,036 4.09%
Facilities Maintenance 1,081,742 1,114,550 32,808 3.03%
Total General Government 6,550,070 6,641,622 91,552 1.40%
Public Safety:
Police 7,306,402 7,208,512 (97,890) -1.34%
Fire Protection 3,122,173 3,164,344 42,171 1.35%
Inspectional Services 1,816,227 1,863,296 47,069 2.59%
Total Public Safety 12,244,802 12,236,152 (8,650) -0.07%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 854,900 829,698 (25,203) -2.95%
Engineering 829,800 846,031 16,231 1.96%
Operations 2,509,100 2,550,285 41,185 1.64%
Total Public Works 4,193,800 4,226,014 32,214 0.77%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,245,408 1,239,230 (6,178) -0.50%
Recreation Center 1,436,858 1,442,447 5,589 0.39%
Park Maintenance 1,396,715 1,435,374 38,659 2.77%
Westwood 493,450 502,366 8,916 1.81%
Environment 351,543 371,325 19,782 5.63%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,162,192 1,141,721 (20,471) -1.76%
Total Park & Recreation 6,086,166 6,132,462 46,296 0.76%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.38%
Total Non-Departmental 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.38%
Total General & Park Funds 29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731 0.55%
Other Budgets–Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Rev. and Select Capital Project Funds
Summaries for Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and relevant Capital Projects Funds
that departments budgeted for in 2011, are provided in the attached resolution. This is a change
from previous years, as staff thought it was important to show a more comprehensive picture of
the resources the City is entrusted with and have the City Council adopt those additional budgets.
Therefore, the total expenditures that the City budgets for is approximately $48 million, with
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
$29.4 million or 61.2% being for the General and Park and Recreation Funds and the remaining
$18.6 million or 38.8% being for the other funds.
2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City Council reviewed the CIP at study sessions throughout the 2011 Budget process. The
next five years could be the most significant infrastructure construction period the City of St.
Louis Park has experienced. This is evident with the upcoming construction of two fire stations,
current completion of Wooddale Ave. and Highway 7, and the anticipated Highway 7 and
Louisiana Ave. interchange project scheduled during this period. In addition, continued
investment in the regular cycle of street reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure
improvements, and replacement of existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is
vital that careful planning continues to occur in an effort to maintain financial stability while still
investing in capital.
The 2011 – 2015 CIP shows that:
• $168.8 million in planned investment over the next five years
• $109.7 million of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, state and county
government, in addition to Municipal State Aid (MSA), Met Council and other
jurisdictions (not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities).
• $2.3 million of estimated project costs do not have a funding source, most of which
pertain to bikeways/sidewalks/trails.
• Resources that the city has direct control over will require an investment of
approximately $56.8 million over the next 5 years.
Not included in the proposed 2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan at this time include:
• A civic/community center (Vision item).
• Expansion of the city’s streets and utility systems (other than interchange projects).
• Other non-planned projects or events.
Only those projects included in the CIP for 2011 are authorized for purchase during the next
year. The out years, 2012-2015 are for planning purposes only and do not represent a firm
commitment to construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council.
Any projects estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for
acceptance by the Council.
Utility Rates
City staff, in conjunction with consultants, analyzed the City’s utility operations and capital
plans over the next 10 years to determine if rate adjustments are needed to maintain long term
sustainability in each of the four utility funds. The City Council reviewed and discussed
information provided by staff over the course of the year to determine the proposed utility rates
for 2011 to be considered this evening.
Based on Council direction, the approximate cumulative effect on a residential property for all
the utility rate adjustments would be approximately $63.00 for the year, or approximately $5.25
per month. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter
(22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on
January 1, 2011. The attached resolution provides specific information on the recommended rate
adjustments for each fund.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed budgets, tax levies, and utility rates will support necessary city services to be
provided during 2011. In addition, the 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan provides a plan to
allow the City to fund its infrastructure and equipment needs over the next five years.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Vision, including strategic directions, was used in preparing the budget documents and many of
the projects in the CIP have a direct relationship to the Strategic Directions adopted by the City
Council.
Attachments: - Resolution – Adopting the 2010 Revised General and Park and Recreation
Funds Budgets, 2011 Budgets and adopting the 2011 Final Property Tax Levy
- Resolution – Authorizing the 2011 HRA Levy
- Resolution – Adopting the 2011 – 2015 Capital Improvement Plan
- Resolution – Adopting the 2011 Utility Rates
- CIP – Sources and Uses – 12-20-10
- CIP – Projects by Funding Source – 12-20-10
- CIP – Projects by Department – 12-20-10
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2010 REVISED GENERAL AND PARK AND
RECREATION FUNDS BUDGETS, 2011 BUDGETS AND
ADOPTING THE 2011 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax
levy and a budget in December of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the 2010 Revised General and Park and Recreation Funds Budgets are adopted as
presented in the 2010 budget document and the 2011 Budgets are adopted as presented in the
2011 budget document; and
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Budgeted Revenues
2010 2010 2011 Dollar % Change
Adopted Final Requested Change Final to '11
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.:
General Property Taxes 18,904,477$ 18,904,477$ 19,426,633$ 522,156 2.76%
Licenses and Permits 2,301,043 2,301,043 2,352,510 51,467 2.24%
Intergovernmental 1,677,566 1,670,006 1,213,839 (456,167) -27.32%
Charges for Services 2,205,918 2,211,918 2,247,892 35,974 1.63%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 311,750 311,750 328,200 16,450 5.28%
Investment Earnings 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,021,400 1,021,500 1,057,300 35,800 3.50%
Transfers In 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 Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.29,256,779$ 29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731 0.55%
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Budgeted Expenditures
2010 2010 2011 Dollar % Change
Adopted Final Requested Change Final to '11
Total General Government 6,620,121 6,550,070 6,641,622 91,552 1.40%
Total Public Safety 12,167,212 12,244,802 12,236,152 (8,650) -0.07%
Total Public Works 4,187,166 4,193,800 4,226,014 32,214 0.77%
Total Park & Recreation 6,102,280 6,086,166 6,132,462 46,296 0.76%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,681 180,000 (681) -0.38%
Total General & Park Funds 29,256,779$ 29,255,519$ 29,416,250$ 160,731 0.55%
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and Select Capital Projects Funds
Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
2010 2011
Adopted Proposed
HRA Levy Fund
Total HRA Levy Revenues 1,143,341$ 1,155,888$
Total HRA Levy Expenditures 1,700,271$ 36,000$
Cable TV Fund
Total Cable TV Revenues 600,000$ 555,000$
Total Cable TV Expenditures 576,415$ 619,341$
Development Fund
Total Development Fund Revenues 961,892$ 1,010,892$
Total Development Fund Expenditures 765,723$ 849,393$
CDBG Fund
Total CDBG Revenues 206,455$ 206,000$
Total CDBG Expenditures 206,455$ 205,681$
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 560,000$ 1,100,000$
Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 1,270,305$ 1,273,015$
Water Utility Fund
Total Water Revenues 3,872,766$ 5,312,894$
Total Water Expenses 5,182,472$ 4,465,990$
Sewer Utility Fund
Total Sewer Revenues 4,889,104$ 5,358,033$
Total Sewer Expenses 5,396,775$ 5,306,726$
Solid Waste Utility Fund
Total Solid Waste Revenues 2,687,930$ 2,894,000$
Total Solid Waste Expenses 3,803,132$ 2,829,735$
Storm Water Utility Fund
Total Storm Water Revenues 1,916,318$ 1,993,698$
Total Storm Water Expenses 2,618,098$ 2,187,697$
Employee Flex Fund
Total Employee Flex Revenues 55,000$ 59,000$
Total Employee Flex Expenses 553,000$ 614,000$
Uninsured Loss Fund
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 47,000$ 37,000$
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 134,850$ 184,495$
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2010, collectible in
2011 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2011
FINAL TAX LEVY
2011 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,094,172
Park Improvement Fund 1,519,000
Capital Replacement Fund 338,300
Pavement Management Fund 415,000
Debt Service 996,995
TOTAL 2011 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY $23,363,467
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2010 HRA LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2011
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2011,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 12
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2011-2015
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Controller related to proposed capital spending for 2011-2015; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to
enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council
and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The 2011-2015 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year
2011 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 13
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION SETTING UTILITY RATES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report through the Controller related to proposed utility rates; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain charges in an amount necessary to
cover the cost of providing service to users; and
WHEREAS, maintaining rates through regular adjustment is a recommended practice
rather than large intermittent increases;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The water rates as recommended are hereby adopted.
Description Units of Usage* Adopted
Rate
Tier1 0 - 40 units (0-30,000 gallons) $1.35
Tier 2 41-80 units (30,001 – 60,000 gallons) $1.69
Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons) $2.53
Commercial All units $1.35
Irrigation All units $2.53
*1 unit equals 100 cubic feet or 750 gallons
2. The water meter charges recommended are hereby adopted.
Residential/Multi-family
Quarterly Fee
Commercial
Monthly Fee
Meter Size 2011 2011
5/8" $10.15 $3.38
3/4" $10.15 $3.38
1" $14.21 $4.74
1.5" $18.27 $6.09
2" $29.44 $9.81
3" $111.65 $37.22
4" $142.10 $47.37
6" $213.15 $71.05
2" compound $29.44 n/a
3" compound $111.65 n/a
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d) Page 14
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 City and HRA Levies, CIP and Utility Rates
3. The Minnesota Department of Health for state testing for water quality will be imposed
effective January 1, 2011 at a rate of $1.59 per quarter for residential and multi-family and
$0.53 per month for commercial accounts.
The sanitary sewer usage rate recommended is hereby adopted at $2.43 per unit.
4. The sanitary sewer base charge recommended is hereby adopted at $12.54 per quarter for
residential and multi-family accounts and $4.18 per month for commercial accounts.
5. The storm sewer rate recommended is hereby adopted at $15.00 per residential equivalent
unit and $25.00 per month for commercial accounts
6. The solid waste service charges recommended are hereby adopted.
Service Level In Gallons Rates
30 $47.13
60 $59.94
90 $72.74
120 $85.56
150 $98.37
180 $111.18
210 $123.99
240 $136.80
270 $149.61
360 $188.05
450 $226.48
540 $264.90
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
SOURCES AND DEPARTMENTS SUMMARY
2011 thru 2015
TotalSource2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 493,150115,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300
Capital Replacement Fund 10,563,4681,610,059 3,340,734 1,931,654 1,892,337 1,788,684
G.O. Bonds 12,516,19712,516,197
Henn Co Youth Sports Grant 215,000215,000
Hennepin County 1,120,000500,000 320,000 300,000
HRA Levy 3,410,5423,410,542
Met Council Grant 85,000,00012,000,000 34,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000
Municipal State Aid 2,116,500427,000 472,500 540,000 385,000 292,000
Other Jurisdictions 900,000900,000
Park Improvement Fund 5,717,5001,509,500 941,000 707,000 895,000 1,665,000
Pavement Management Fund 8,010,6501,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,374,134
Police & Fire Pension 3,868,9253,055,125 30,125 125,125 620,925 37,625
PW Engineering Budget 35,0005,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
PW Operations Budget 1,457,853273,418 283,511 335,251 282,178 283,495
Sanitary Sewer Utility 1,523,400170,500 632,000 300,900 210,000 210,000
Special Assessments 889,000121,000 110,000 658,000
State of Minnesota 12,669,50012,444,500 225,000
Stormwater Utility 1,650,000730,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,5093,776,509
U.S. Government 7,630,0007,630,000
Unfunded 2,268,844812,456 49,885 878,069 301,587 226,847
Water Utility 2,940,200278,000 617,100 1,370,000 275,100 400,000
35,621,790 70,288,501 20,442,401 19,741,461 22,678,085 168,772,238SOURCE TOTAL
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Department
Buildings 17,320,19715,946,197 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000
Cable TV 458,15080,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300
Community Development 1,857,306294,592 506,249 479,102 577,363
Fire 400,000400,000
Parks & Recreation 10,997,9682,264,559 2,765,734 1,498,654 1,733,337 2,735,684
Public Works 133,540,69215,817,653 65,934,907 16,850,119 16,016,537 18,921,476
Technology 4,197,925730,125 786,125 930,125 1,133,925 617,625
35,133,926 70,776,365 20,131,900 20,051,962 22,678,085 168,772,238DEPARTMENT TOTAL
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 15
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2011 2015thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
TRF-224 35,00035,000ArcGIS Server 3
TV-20110011 8,0008,000Replacement digital camcorders 1
TV-20110013 5,0005,000Studio Upgrade 3
TV-201101 750750Announcer Headsets 3
TV-201102 150150Announcer Table 3
TV-201103 15,00015,000Studio cameras 1
TV-201104 900900Microphones1
TV-201105 3,0003,000Tripod pedestal dolly 1
TV-201106 41,00041,000Video server, Cablecast controller & CG 1
TV-201107 7,0007,000Council Chambers A/V upgrade 1
TV-20120012 6,0006,000Knox Router for Chambers 1
TV-201201 2,0002,000Wireless mic systems 1
TV-201202 7,0007,000CG1
TV-201203 250250CD Player 1
TV201204 4,0004,000Production titler 1
TV-201204 1,2001,200Teleprompter1
TV-201206 1,5001,500DVD recorder 1
TV-201207 1,4001,400Computer1
TV-201301 300300Annoucer Monitor 3
TV-201302 40040050' audio snake 1
TV-201303 500500Shotgun mics 1
TV-201304 300300Hand-held mics 1
TV-201305 1,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1
TV-201306 900900Camera Monitors 1
TV-201307 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1
TV-201401 500500DVD Recorders 1
TV-201402 30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 1
TV-201403 70070012-channel audio mixer 1
TV-201404 7,5007,500Digital camcorders 1
TV-201405 10,20010,200NLE stations 1
TV-201406 900900Microphones1
TV-201501 120,000120,000Van Cameras 3
TV-201502 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 3
TV-201503 13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 3
TV-201504 15,00015,000LCD monitors 3
TV-201505 2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 1
TV201506 6,0006,000Converter for Recorder 1
TV-201507 36,00036,000Tripods for On Location 1
TV-201508 16,50016,500Video Switcher 1
TV-201509 4,2004,200SD/HD converter 1
TV-201510 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201511 1,5001,500Tripods1
TV-201512 900900Unit pro light kit 1
TV-201513 28,20028,200Playback systems 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 16
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
493,150115,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
Grant Total
Capital Replacement Fund
20091600 500,000500,000City Hall Space Reallocation 3
20091700 385,000385,000City Hall Garage Roof 1
2010PD1 10,00010,000Police Station Sidewalks 1
2011B1 15,00015,000Westwood Energy Improvement 3
2011B2 10,00010,000Energy Improvements - Police Department 3
2011PD2 10,00010,000Police Station Evidence Room Ventilation 1
2012B1 158,000150,000 8,000Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
2012CH1 50,00050,000City Hall 1st Floor Covering 1
2012PD1 60,00060,000Police Station Boiler Recirculation 1
2013B1 50,00050,000City Hall 1st Floor Entry Canopy 1
2013CH1 100,000100,000City Hall 2nd Floor Covering 1
2013CH2 20,00020,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 1
2013CH3 50,00050,000City Hall Kewanee Boiler 1
2013PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Exterior Finishes 1
2013PD2 15,00015,000Police Station Fire Alarm Panel 1
2014CH1 100,000100,000City Hall 3rd Floor Covering 1
2014CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Alarm Panel 1
2014F1 400,000400,000SCBA Replacement 1
2014WNC1 11,00011,000Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway 1
2015CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 1
2015MSC1 100,000100,000MSC Generator Set 1
E - XX01 5,065,468540,059 1,824,734 791,654 838,337 1,070,684Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1
TRF-001 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000On-going Hardware / Telephone Replacement 1
TRF-002 750,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000On-going Software Replacement 1
TRF-003 375,00075,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000On-going Network Replacement 1
TRF-213 100,000100,000Citywide Technology Study 3
TRF-215 200,000200,000PW Request: Software Consolidation/Replacement 3
TRF-218 50,00050,000***On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
TRF-219 25,00025,000***SAN Addition for Documents Imaging 1
TRF-220 100,000100,000Email Archival and Document Management Solution 3
TRF-221 10,00010,000Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 3
TRF-222 6,0006,000Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work 3
TRF-306 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins 3
TRF-307 20,00020,000Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
TRF-308 65,00065,000City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000MSC Copiers (2)3
TRF-310 3,0003,000City Hall Counter Copiers 3
TRF-312 60,00020,000 20,000 20,000Fiber Conduit - TBD 3
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers 3
TRF-321 250,000250,000Financial / HR/ Payroll App Replacement 1
TRF-322 210,000210,000Utility Billing App Replacement 1
TRF-345 30,00015,000 15,000Council Chambers Laptops 3
TRF-346 105,000105,000Voting Machines 1
TRF-347 40,00020,000 20,000Basic Windows 7 / Office 2010 Training 3
TRF-348 55,00055,000Nature Center Surveillance Cameras 3
TRF-349 5,0005,000Network Nature Center Picnic Building 3
TRF-350 2,0002,000Property Maintenance Field Laptop / Printer 3
TRF-352 8,0008,000Square Rigger Handhelds 1
TRF-353 14,00014,000UPS Enhancements 3
TRF-355 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Reverse 911 3
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 17
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TRF-356 20,00020,000Oce Scanner / Copier 3
TRF-357 21,00021,000Engineering Total Station 1
TRF-400 100,000100,000Network Switches 1
10,563,4681,610,059 3,340,734 1,931,654 1,892,337 1,788,684Capital Replacement Fund Total
G.O. Bonds
20081700 12,516,19712,516,197Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1
12,516,19712,516,197G.O. Bonds Total
Henn Co Youth Sports Grant
20110050 200,000200,000Northside Park Redevelopment 1
20110160 15,00015,000Westwood HNC Climbing Wall 5
215,000215,000Henn Co Youth Sports Grant Total
Hennepin County
20100005 320,000320,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
TEMP-0011 500,000500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0012 300,000300,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
1,120,000500,000 320,000 300,000Hennepin County Total
HRA Levy
20120100 2,398,0002,398,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20121300 1,012,5421,012,542Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
3,410,5423,410,542HRA Levy Total
Met Council Grant
TEMP-0014 22,000,00022,000,000Sanitary Sewer Project- MCES Golden Valley 1
TEMP-0015 63,000,00012,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - MCES Hopkins Interceptor Reh 1
85,000,00012,000,000 34,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000Met Council Grant Total
Municipal State Aid
20050500 100,000100,000Street Project - W44th Street 1
20101100 327,000327,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20111100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20121304 27,50027,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 1
20121305 25,00025,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 1
20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20131301 25,00025,000Railroad Proj. - RR Xing Devices on Brookside Ave 1
20141100 385,000385,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20150100 100,000100,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3
20151100 192,000192,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
2,116,500427,000 472,500 540,000 385,000 292,000Municipal State Aid Total
Other Jurisdictions
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 18
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
20150100 900,000900,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3
900,000900,000Other Jurisdictions Total
Park Improvement Fund
20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3
20110010 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building 3
20110020 20,00020,000Bleacher Replacement-Dakota & Freedom Parks 1
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement 1
20110040 27,00027,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot (mill,overlay, landscpe)3
20110050 800,000800,000Northside Park Redevelopment 1
20110060 6,0006,000Oak Hill Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3
20110070 10,00010,000Peter Hobart School Basketball Hoops 3
20110080 35,00035,000Playground Eqpt Replacement - Aquila Park 1
20110090 300,000300,000Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification 1
20110110 25,00025,000Rec Center Energy Upgrade-Showers in Pool Lckr Rms 3
20110120 58,00058,000Rec Center Front Office Remodel 5
20110130 10,00010,000Rec Center Parking Lot Medians 3
20110140 5,0005,000Scoreboard - Freedom Park (Paul Frank Field)5
20110150 35,00035,000Walker Park Irrigation Upgrade 3
20110160 3,5003,500Westwood HNC Climbing Wall 5
20110170 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement 5
20120010 50,00050,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Nelson Parks 3
20120020 20,00020,000Bleacher Rplcmnt-Cedar Knoll & Tower Parks 1
20120030 20,00020,000Carpenter Park - Skippy Field - Dug Outs 3
20120040 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #1 Redev & Fence Repl.3
20120050 17,00017,000Freedom Park-Paul Frank Baseball field fence repl.3
20120060 22,00022,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot seal coat 3
20120070 20,00020,000Park Shelter Bldg Stain-Oak Hill & LA Parks 3
20120080 140,000140,000Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill & Wolfe Pks 1
20120090 25,00025,000Rec Center Banquet Room remodel 3
20120110 60,00060,000Rec Center Lobby Lights 3
20120120 15,00015,000Rec Center PA System replacement 5
20120130 15,00015,000Rec Center Pool Pump Rebuild 3
20120140 24,00012,000 12,000Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 5
20120150 20,00020,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration System Study 1
20120160 15,00015,000Scoreboards-Cedar Knoll & Carpenter Parks 3
20120170 200,000200,000Tower Park Field Redevelopment 3
20120180 50,00050,000Trail/Field Light Impr,Dakota & Louisiana Oaks Prk 3
20120190 15,00015,000Walker Park Field Fence 3
20120200 30,00030,000Rec Center Cooling Tower Enclosure Wall Rebuild 3
20120210 75,00075,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 3
20130010 30,00030,000Court Resrfcg-Bass Lake,Fern Hill & Carpenter Park 3
20130020 40,00040,000Cedar Knoll Park Storage & Concession Bldg Remodel 3
20130030 10,00010,000Dakota Park Baseball Field Netting Rplcmnt 1
20130040 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Fld #2-Redvlp & fence replace 3
20130050 35,00035,000Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System 5
20130060 110,000110,000Playground Eqpt Repl.-Dakota & Oak Hill Park 1
20130070 65,00065,000Rec Center concession cooling system 1
20130080 30,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Flooring 3
20130090 20,00020,000Rec Center Gallery Update 3
20130110 55,00055,000Rec Center East Arena repainting 5
20130130 25,00025,000Rec Center West Arena Fire Protection 1
20130140 25,00025,000Rec Center Window Replacement 3
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 19
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
20130150 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House Kitchen Replacement 5
20130160 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Signage Replacement 5
20130170 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rplcmnt (N)&Railing 1
20130190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Y-Dock Replacement 3
20140010 25,00025,000Field Renovation Cedar Knoll (Carlson Field) Park 3
20140020 25,00025,000Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement 3
20140030 70,00070,000Playground Equip Repl-Jersey & Rainbow Parks 1
20140040 80,00080,000Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby)1
20140050 75,00075,000Rec Center Security Cameras - Interior 5
20140060 325,000325,000Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification 1
20140070 35,00035,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 3
20140080 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3
20140090 10,00010,000Westwood Hills Deck Repairs 3
20140110 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Parking Lot & Drive Seal Coat 3
20140130 150,000150,000Wolfe Park Pond Dredge and Relandscaping 3
20150010 15,00015,000Basketball Court Resurface-Mkda V,Pen,Wolfe Pks 3
20150020 14,00014,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk,FernHill & Northside 3
20150030 10,00010,000Kilmer Pond Shoreline Restoration 3
20150040 200,000200,000Louisiana Oaks Park Field Lighing (NW fields)5
20150050 15,00015,000Louisiana Oaks Park Pond Shoreline Restoration 3
20150060 75,00075,000Playground Structure Replacement-Justad & Nelson 1
20150070 25,00025,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface/Recoat 3
20150080 1,000,0001,000,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration Replacement 1
20150090 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3
20150110 30,00030,000Trail Recon. along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 1
20150120 5,0005,000Westwood Hills NC Brickhouse Parking Area 5
20150130 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Rental House Improvements 3
20150140 6,0006,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 5
20150150 30,00030,000Westwood Hills Window Rplcmnt- Brick & Rental Hses 3
20150160 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement 3
5,717,5001,509,500 941,000 707,000 895,000 1,665,000Park Improvement Fund Total
Pavement Management Fund
20101000 1,093,8521,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)1
20110001 259,883259,883Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)1
20110004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20111000 1,635,6641,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)1
20120001 265,081265,081Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)1
20120004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20121000 1,325,1211,325,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)1
20130001 270,381270,381Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1
20130004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20131000 1,348,7441,348,744Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20140001 237,790237,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20141000 1,148,0001,148,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)1
20150001 201,134201,134Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1
20150004 25,00025,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
8,010,6501,403,735 1,950,745 1,645,502 1,636,534 1,374,134Pavement Management Fund Total
Police & Fire Pension
20081700 3,000,0003,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 20
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TRF-111 593,300593,300Fire / Police 800 MHz Radio Replacements 1
TRF-313 7,5002,500 2,500 2,500Fire / Police Wireless Hotspots 3
TRF-315 80,00080,000Police Mobile Replacements 1
TRF-316 30,00015,000 15,000***Fire Mobile Replacements 3
TRF-323 138,12527,625 27,625 27,625 27,625 27,625Police CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement 1
TRF-342 20,00010,000 10,000EOC Equipment 3
3,868,9253,055,125 30,125 125,125 620,925 37,625Police & Fire Pension Total
PW Engineering Budget
TEMP-0014 10,00010,000Sanitary Sewer Project- MCES Golden Valley 1
TEMP-0015 25,0005,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - MCES Hopkins Interceptor Reh 1
35,0005,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000PW Engineering Budget Total
PW Operations Budget
20110001 35,00035,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)1
20110003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20110004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20120001 35,00035,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)1
20120003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20120004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20130001 38,00038,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1
20130003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20130004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20140001 38,00038,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20140004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20150001 42,66542,665Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1
20150003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20150004 12,50012,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
M - XX07 52,2189,836 10,130 10,434 10,748 11,070Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1
M - XX10 649,004123,582 133,381 138,851 128,430 124,760Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
M - XX12 42,96642,966Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements 1
1,457,853273,418 283,511 335,251 282,178 283,495PW Operations Budget Total
Sanitary Sewer Utility
20112200 170,500170,500Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 7)1
20122200 157,000157,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 8)1
20122300 475,000475,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 1
20132200 175,900175,900Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 1)1
20132300 125,000125,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement 1
20142200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 2)1
20142300 60,00060,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #10 and FM Rehab 1
20152200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 3)1
20152300 60,00060,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #4 & FM Rehab 1
1,523,400170,500 632,000 300,900 210,000 210,000Sanitary Sewer Utility Total
Special Assessments
20141101 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 21
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
M - XX13 389,000121,000 110,000 158,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
889,000121,000 110,000 658,000Special Assessments Total
State of Minnesota
20120100 11,972,00011,972,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20121304 247,500247,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 1
20121305 225,000225,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 1
20131301 225,000225,000Railroad Proj. - RR Xing Devices on Brookside Ave 1
12,669,50012,444,500 225,000State of Minnesota Total
Stormwater Utility
20072400 500,000500,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)1
20110006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20120006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20121200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20130006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20131200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20140006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20141200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20150006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20151200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
1,650,000730,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000Stormwater Utility Total
Tax Increment - Elmwood
20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5
20121300 987,458987,458Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5
3,776,5093,776,509Tax Increment - Elmwood Total
U.S. Government
20120100 7,630,0007,630,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
7,630,0007,630,000U.S. Government Total
Unfunded
20052000 200,000200,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
CD-001 571,364571,364CD-Bikeways 5
CD-002 1,019,080211,092 18,385 789,603CD-Sidewalks 5
CD-003 266,862266,862CD-Trails 5
M - XX06 82,23855,391 26,847Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1
M - XX14 129,30030,000 31,500 33,075 34,725Street Name Sign Replacement Project 1
2,268,844812,456 49,885 878,069 301,587 226,847Unfunded Total
Water Utility
20101300 581,700581,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 22
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1
20111400 278,000278,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20121400 35,40035,400Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20121500 1,110,0001,110,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
20131400 260,000260,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20141400 275,100275,100Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20151400 150,000150,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
2,940,200278,000 617,100 1,370,000 275,100 400,000Water Utility Total
168,772,23835,621,790 70,288,501 20,442,401 19,741,461 22,678,085GRAND TOTAL
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 23
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
2011 2015thru
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
Buildings
20081700 15,516,19715,516,197Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1
20091600 500,000500,000City Hall Space Reallocation 3
20091700 385,000385,000City Hall Garage Roof 1
2010PD1 10,00010,000Police Station Sidewalks 1
2011B1 15,00015,000Westwood Energy Improvement 3
2011B2 10,00010,000Energy Improvements - Police Department 3
2011PD2 10,00010,000Police Station Evidence Room Ventilation 1
2012B1 158,000150,000 8,000Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
2012CH1 50,00050,000City Hall 1st Floor Covering 1
2012PD1 60,00060,000Police Station Boiler Recirculation 1
2013B1 50,00050,000City Hall 1st Floor Entry Canopy 1
2013CH1 100,000100,000City Hall 2nd Floor Covering 1
2013CH2 20,00020,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 1
2013CH3 50,00050,000City Hall Kewanee Boiler 1
2013PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Exterior Finishes 1
2013PD2 15,00015,000Police Station Fire Alarm Panel 1
2014CH1 100,000100,000City Hall 3rd Floor Covering 1
2014CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Alarm Panel 1
2014WNC1 11,00011,000Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway 1
2015CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 1
2015MSC1 100,000100,000MSC Generator Set 1
17,320,19715,946,197 760,000 335,000 141,000 138,000Buildings Total
Cable TV
TV-20110011 8,0008,000Replacement digital camcorders 1
TV-20110013 5,0005,000Studio Upgrade 3
TV-201101 750750Announcer Headsets 3
TV-201102 150150Announcer Table 3
TV-201103 15,00015,000Studio cameras 1
TV-201104 900900Microphones1
TV-201105 3,0003,000Tripod pedestal dolly 1
TV-201106 41,00041,000Video server, Cablecast controller & CG 1
TV-201107 7,0007,000Council Chambers A/V upgrade 1
TV-20120012 6,0006,000Knox Router for Chambers 1
TV-201201 2,0002,000Wireless mic systems 1
TV-201202 7,0007,000CG1
TV-201203 250250CD Player 1
TV201204 4,0004,000Production titler 1
TV-201204 1,2001,200Teleprompter1
TV-201206 1,5001,500DVD recorder 1
TV-201207 1,4001,400Computer1
TV-201301 300300Annoucer Monitor 3
TV-201302 40040050' audio snake 1
TV-201303 500500Shotgun mics 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 24
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
TV-201304 300300Hand-held mics 1
TV-201305 1,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1
TV-201306 900900Camera Monitors 1
TV-201307 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1
TV-201401 500500DVD Recorders 1
TV-201402 30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 1
TV-201403 70070012-channel audio mixer 1
TV-201404 7,5007,500Digital camcorders 1
TV-201405 10,20010,200NLE stations 1
TV-201406 900900Microphones1
TV-201501 120,000120,000Van Cameras 3
TV-201502 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 3
TV-201503 13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 3
TV-201504 15,00015,000LCD monitors 3
TV-201505 2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 1
TV201506 6,0006,000Converter for Recorder 1
TV-201507 36,00036,000Tripods for On Location 1
TV-201508 16,50016,500Video Switcher 1
TV-201509 4,2004,200SD/HD converter 1
TV-201510 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201511 1,5001,500Tripods1
TV-201512 900900Unit pro light kit 1
TV-201513 28,20028,200Playback systems 1
458,15080,800 23,350 38,900 49,800 265,300Cable TV Total
Community Development
CD-001 571,36483,500 487,864CD-Bikeways 5
CD-002 1,019,080211,092 18,385 479,102 310,501CD-Sidewalks 5
CD-003 266,862266,862CD-Trails 5
1,857,306294,592 506,249 479,102 577,363Community Development Total
Fire
2014F1 400,000400,000SCBA Replacement 1
400,000400,000Fire Total
Parks & Recreation
20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3
20110010 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building 3
20110020 20,00020,000Bleacher Replacement-Dakota & Freedom Parks 1
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement 1
20110040 27,00027,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot (mill,overlay, landscpe)3
20110050 1,000,0001,000,000Northside Park Redevelopment 1
20110060 6,0006,000Oak Hill Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3
20110070 10,00010,000Peter Hobart School Basketball Hoops 3
20110080 35,00035,000Playground Eqpt Replacement - Aquila Park 1
20110090 300,000300,000Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification 1
20110110 25,00025,000Rec Center Energy Upgrade-Showers in Pool Lckr Rms 3
20110120 58,00058,000Rec Center Front Office Remodel 5
20110130 10,00010,000Rec Center Parking Lot Medians 3
20110140 5,0005,000Scoreboard - Freedom Park (Paul Frank Field)5
20110150 35,00035,000Walker Park Irrigation Upgrade 3
20110160 18,50018,500Westwood HNC Climbing Wall 5
20110170 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement 5
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 25
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
20120010 50,00050,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Nelson Parks 3
20120020 20,00020,000Bleacher Rplcmnt-Cedar Knoll & Tower Parks 1
20120030 20,00020,000Carpenter Park - Skippy Field - Dug Outs 3
20120040 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #1 Redev & Fence Repl.3
20120050 17,00017,000Freedom Park-Paul Frank Baseball field fence repl.3
20120060 22,00022,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot seal coat 3
20120070 20,00020,000Park Shelter Bldg Stain-Oak Hill & LA Parks 3
20120080 140,000140,000Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill & Wolfe Pks 1
20120090 25,00025,000Rec Center Banquet Room remodel 3
20120110 60,00060,000Rec Center Lobby Lights 3
20120120 15,00015,000Rec Center PA System replacement 5
20120130 15,00015,000Rec Center Pool Pump Rebuild 3
20120140 24,00012,000 12,000Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 5
20120150 20,00020,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration System Study 1
20120160 15,00015,000Scoreboards-Cedar Knoll & Carpenter Parks 3
20120170 200,000200,000Tower Park Field Redevelopment 3
20120180 50,00050,000Trail/Field Light Impr,Dakota & Louisiana Oaks Prk 3
20120190 15,00015,000Walker Park Field Fence 3
20120200 30,00030,000Rec Center Cooling Tower Enclosure Wall Rebuild 3
20120210 75,00075,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 3
20130010 30,00030,000Court Resrfcg-Bass Lake,Fern Hill & Carpenter Park 3
20130020 40,00040,000Cedar Knoll Park Storage & Concession Bldg Remodel 3
20130030 10,00010,000Dakota Park Baseball Field Netting Rplcmnt 1
20130040 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Fld #2-Redvlp & fence replace 3
20130050 35,00035,000Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System 5
20130060 110,000110,000Playground Eqpt Repl.-Dakota & Oak Hill Park 1
20130070 65,00065,000Rec Center concession cooling system 1
20130080 30,00030,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Flooring 3
20130090 20,00020,000Rec Center Gallery Update 3
20130110 55,00055,000Rec Center East Arena repainting 5
20130130 25,00025,000Rec Center West Arena Fire Protection 1
20130140 25,00025,000Rec Center Window Replacement 3
20130150 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House Kitchen Replacement 5
20130160 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Signage Replacement 5
20130170 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rplcmnt (N)&Railing 1
20130190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Y-Dock Replacement 3
20140010 25,00025,000Field Renovation Cedar Knoll (Carlson Field) Park 3
20140020 25,00025,000Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement 3
20140030 70,00070,000Playground Equip Repl-Jersey & Rainbow Parks 1
20140040 80,00080,000Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby)1
20140050 75,00075,000Rec Center Security Cameras - Interior 5
20140060 325,000325,000Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification 1
20140070 35,00035,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 3
20140080 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3
20140090 10,00010,000Westwood Hills Deck Repairs 3
20140110 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Parking Lot & Drive Seal Coat 3
20140130 150,000150,000Wolfe Park Pond Dredge and Relandscaping 3
20150010 15,00015,000Basketball Court Resurface-Mkda V,Pen,Wolfe Pks 3
20150020 14,00014,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk,FernHill & Northside 3
20150030 10,00010,000Kilmer Pond Shoreline Restoration 3
20150040 200,000200,000Louisiana Oaks Park Field Lighing (NW fields)5
20150050 15,00015,000Louisiana Oaks Park Pond Shoreline Restoration 3
20150060 75,00075,000Playground Structure Replacement-Justad & Nelson 1
20150070 25,00025,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface/Recoat 3
20150080 1,000,0001,000,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration Replacement 1
20150090 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3
20150110 30,00030,000Trail Recon. along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 26
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
20150120 5,0005,000Westwood Hills NC Brickhouse Parking Area 5
20150130 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Rental House Improvements 3
20150140 6,0006,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 5
20150150 30,00030,000Westwood Hills Window Rplcmnt- Brick & Rental Hses 3
20150160 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement 3
E - XX01 5,065,468540,059 1,824,734 791,654 838,337 1,070,684Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1
10,997,9682,264,559 2,765,734 1,498,654 1,733,337 2,735,684Parks & Recreation Total
Public Works
20050500 100,000100,000Street Project - W44th Street 1
20052000 200,000200,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
20072400 500,000500,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)1
20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5
20100005 320,000320,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
20101000 1,093,8521,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)1
20101100 327,000327,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20101300 581,700581,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1
20110001 294,883294,883Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)1
20110003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20110004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20110006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20111000 1,635,6641,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)1
20111100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20111400 278,000278,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20112200 170,500170,500Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 7)1
20120001 300,081300,081Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)1
20120003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20120004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20120006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20120100 22,000,00022,000,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5
20121000 1,325,1211,325,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)1
20121200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5
20121304 275,000275,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 1
20121305 250,000250,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 1
20121400 35,40035,400Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20121500 1,110,0001,110,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
20122200 157,000157,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 8)1
20122300 475,000475,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 1
20130001 308,381308,381Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1
20130003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20130004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20130006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20131000 1,348,7441,348,744Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20131200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20131301 250,000250,000Railroad Proj. - RR Xing Devices on Brookside Ave 1
20131400 260,000260,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20132200 175,900175,900Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 1)1
20132300 125,000125,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement 1
20140001 275,790275,790Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 27
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20140004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20140006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20141000 1,148,0001,148,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)1
20141100 385,000385,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20141101 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20141200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20141400 275,100275,100Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20142200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 2)1
20142300 60,00060,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #10 and FM Rehab 1
20150001 243,799243,799Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1
20150003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20150004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20150006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20150100 1,000,0001,000,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3
20151100 192,000192,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 1
20151200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20151400 150,000150,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
20152200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (Area 3)1
20152300 60,00060,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #4 & FM Rehab 1
M - XX06 82,23855,391 26,847Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1
M - XX07 52,2189,836 10,130 10,434 10,748 11,070Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1
M - XX10 649,004123,582 133,381 138,851 128,430 124,760Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
M - XX12 42,96642,966Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements 1
M - XX13 389,000121,000 110,000 158,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
M - XX14 129,30030,000 31,500 33,075 34,725Street Name Sign Replacement Project 1
TEMP-0011 500,000500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0012 300,000300,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0014 22,010,00022,010,000Sanitary Sewer Project- MCES Golden Valley 1
TEMP-0015 63,025,00012,005,000 12,005,000 12,005,000 12,005,000 15,005,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - MCES Hopkins Interceptor Reh 1
133,540,69215,817,653 65,934,907 16,850,119 16,016,537 18,921,476Public Works Total
Technology
TRF-001 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000On-going Hardware / Telephone Replacement 1
TRF-002 750,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000On-going Software Replacement 1
TRF-003 375,00075,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000On-going Network Replacement 1
TRF-111 593,300593,300Fire / Police 800 MHz Radio Replacements 1
TRF-213 100,000100,000Citywide Technology Study 3
TRF-215 200,000200,000PW Request: Software Consolidation/Replacement 3
TRF-218 50,00050,000***On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
TRF-219 25,00025,000***SAN Addition for Documents Imaging 1
TRF-220 100,000100,000Email Archival and Document Management Solution 3
TRF-221 10,00010,000Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 3
TRF-222 6,0006,000Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work 3
TRF-224 35,00035,000ArcGIS Server 3
TRF-306 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins 3
TRF-307 20,00020,000Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
TRF-308 65,00065,000City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000MSC Copiers (2)3
TRF-310 3,0003,000City Hall Counter Copiers 3
TRF-312 60,00020,000 20,000 20,000Fiber Conduit - TBD 3
TRF-313 7,5002,500 2,500 2,500Fire / Police Wireless Hotspots 3
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers 3
TRF-315 80,00080,000Police Mobile Replacements 1
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 28
Total2011 2012 2013 2014 2015DepartmentProject# Priority
TRF-316 30,00015,000 15,000***Fire Mobile Replacements 3
TRF-321 250,000250,000Financial / HR/ Payroll App Replacement 1
TRF-322 210,000210,000Utility Billing App Replacement 1
TRF-323 138,12527,625 27,625 27,625 27,625 27,625Police CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement 1
TRF-342 20,00010,000 10,000EOC Equipment 3
TRF-345 30,00015,000 15,000Council Chambers Laptops 3
TRF-346 105,000105,000Voting Machines 1
TRF-347 40,00020,000 20,000Basic Windows 7 / Office 2010 Training 3
TRF-348 55,00055,000Nature Center Surveillance Cameras 3
TRF-349 5,0005,000Network Nature Center Picnic Building 3
TRF-350 2,0002,000Property Maintenance Field Laptop / Printer 3
TRF-352 8,0008,000Square Rigger Handhelds 1
TRF-353 14,00014,000UPS Enhancements 3
TRF-355 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000Reverse 911 3
TRF-356 20,00020,000Oce Scanner / Copier 3
TRF-357 21,00021,000Engineering Total Station 1
TRF-400 100,000100,000Network Switches 1
4,197,925730,125 786,125 930,125 1,133,925 617,625Technology Total
GRAND TOTAL 168,772,23835,133,926 70,776,365 20,131,900 20,051,962 22,678,085
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: Adoption of 2010 Revised Budget, 2011 Budgets, 2011 Levies, CIP & Utility Rates
Page 29
Meeting Date: December 20, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Employee Compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a Resolution confirming a 2.25% general increase for non-union employees
effective 12/31/10 and a 0% increase for 2011; continuing participation in the Volunteer
Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2.25% for Paid-On-
Call Firefighters for 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to confirm the recommended employee compensation proposal?
BACKGROUND:
This report summarizes employee compensation for 2011.
A. Non-Union Employee Compensation – 2.25% General Increase Effective 12/31/10
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve
the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and the
general financial condition of the City. A review of our positions was conducted by
consultant George Gmach of Trusight, Inc (formerly Employer’s Association, Inc.). Mr.
Gmach reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro area cities
(suburbs) with populations over 25,000 but less than 90,000 as required in our
compensation plan. After review of the market, our consultant determined that pay
maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive if increased by 2.25%.
When setting compensation for staff, we also look internally at increases approved for
our other employee groups. For 2010 and 2011, it is recommended that non-union follow
the pattern of wage increases that our Police Officer and Sergeant groups have settled for
in contract negotiations:
January 1, 2010 1%
December 31, 2010 2.25%
January 1, 2011 0%
Our Local 49 Maintenance, Dispatcher, and Fire union groups have open contracts for
2011.
The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our
compensation plan. In our plan, after successful completion of probation (typically six
months), a position receives up to double the standard increase to progress through the
pay range until they reach the payline (maximum). Positions at the maximum will
receive the standard adjustment of 2.25%.
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2011 Employee Compensation Page 2
B. Salary Cap and City Manager Salary
The recommended salary for the City Manager will be provided in early 2011, after the
completion of his annual performance evaluation. At this time, there is no change
recommended to the City Manager’s salary.
C. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer
Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council
approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance.
This program is very affordable. The cost for the total program is $247 for a July 1, 2010
renewal and covers one career firefighter eligible (due to a continuation clause) and our
paid-on-call firefighters. It covers life insurance up to $20,000 and also provides some
disability coverage. This program is a typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call
firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since paid-on-call firefighters are not
eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important that we provide some type of
life insurance coverage for this group. We recommend Council approves continued
participation in this program consistent with Resolution 05-150.
D. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program – 2.25% Increase
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program system was established in 1996. The
Performance Program system was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be
competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department
Relief Association. The Performance Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has
recommended a 2.25% increase to this program, effective January 1, 2011. (Payment is
typically made at year end based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief.)
General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan are available from the City Clerk.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The increases for groups listed above are included in the 2011 budget along with other (step)
increases for other contract employees.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2011 Employee Compensation Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
COMPENSATION FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES;
CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT
PROGRAM, AND
CONTINUING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY
FOR PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such
Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has
conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative
policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park:
A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 2.25%,
effective December 31, 2010 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan.
B. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a 0% increase for non-union
employees on January 1, 2011.
C. Confirms no increase to the salary of the City Manager at this time. Car allowance
remains unchanged per contract and is converted to PTO each month in accordance with
Section 9.13 of the Personnel Manual.
D. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association
of MN Benefit Program for 2011, consistent with Resolution 05-150.
E. Approves continuation of the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2011 Performance Program with a
2.25% increase, effective January 1, 2011.
Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters
For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a monthly
amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount. This amount
may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts after the 23 month
timeframe show annual amounts as follows:
City Council Meeting of December 20, 2010 (Item No. 8e)
Subject: 2011 Employee Compensation Page 4
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Years of Service
2011 Annual
Up to 23 Months of Service $144 per month
2 $1,883
3 $2,023
4 $2,176
5 $2,315
6 $2,454
7 $2,594
8 $2,747
9 $2,888
10 $3,026
11 $3,181
12 $3,333
13 $3,473
14 $3,626
15 $3,765
16 $3,906
17 $4,045
18 $4,198
19 $4,337
20 $4,478