HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/04/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 12, 2010
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- April 26, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Parktacular Celebration Presentation
3. 7:05 p.m. Lawful Charitable Gambling
4. 7:50 p.m. Contracting Relating to Women, Minority and Small Business Owners
5. 8:10 p.m. Update on Minnesota Jobs Bill
6. 8:55 p.m. School Property Use Parameters/Public Process
7. 9:40 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
8. Ellipse Public Art Update
9. Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau Exploration
10. Fire Stations Project Update
11. Urban Forestation Policy Amendment
12. Relocation of Polling Location for Ward 4, Precinct 17
9:45 p.m. Adjourn
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.
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 Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 26.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on April
26, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on April 26, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for April 26, 2010
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Tentative Discussion Items
Please note that the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting is scheduled for 15
minutes, beginning at 6:15 p.m., prior to the Study Session.
Study Session, Monday, April 26, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Rank Choice Voting –Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Staff will present basic information regarding Rank Choice Voting (RCV) along with
Minneapolis Interim Director of Elections Virginia Gelms who will be available to answer
questions regarding the 2009 RCV Election held in Minneapolis.
3. Wooddale Pointe Amended Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (30
minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council the request of Wooddale Pointe for a restated contract
which will include a tax increment request and provide information on an updated project
design and construction schedule.
4. Louisiana Court – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council the financial and operational status of Project for Pride
in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court Development as outlined in its report to Council on
March 1, 2010.
5. Duke Redevelopment Contract/Amendment – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council a request for an amendment to the Duke Redevelopment
Contract that reflects an updated project schedule and amended project components.
6. Review and Discuss Results of February City Council Workshop – Administration (45
minutes)
This discussion will allow for a review of the results of the workshop including City Council
Norms and the Saturday Brainstorming session.
7. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
March 2010 Monthly Financial Statements
1st Quarter 2010 Investment Report
Housekeeping Amendments – Charter/City Code Staff Titles and Primary Date
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: April 12, 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:
Parktacular Celebration Presentation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This report is intended to update City Council on the results of a survey and
activities of Parktacular.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the activities of Parktacular?
BACKGROUND:
Parktacular Celebration Board members Ann Thomas and Joan Fenton have requested the
opportunity to share with the City Council information about the Parktacular Celebration in more
detail, share highlights from the outline below and investigate additional partnership opportunities.
St. Louis Park has been hosting a City celebration since the early 1900's. The 1914 event was
dubbed as the “biggest jubilee celebration ever” in the Minneapolis Daily Newspaper. Through the
years the celebration has been called Robin Hood Days and Party in the Park.
In the mid 1990's, Vision St. Louis Park was launched to determine what citizens wanted St. Louis
Park to be in the new century. A resounding vote asked for a stronger community celebration, where
citizens and groups could participate on a number of levels. The concept was discussed, embraced
and the Parktacular Celebration was born.
The mission of the Parktacular Celebration is to provide St. Louis Park with city-wide events that
bring together local businesses and citizens of all ages to celebrate our community pride.
Parktacular Board Representatives Discussion Outline:
What is Parktacular All About?
• Building Community
• Increasing Tourism
• Showcasing St. Louis Park
• Reciprocating to other communities
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
What is the Parktacular Board Doing These Days?
• Fundraising
• Planning
• Communicating
• Building Community
E-Survey Results
• Tourism
• Reaction to Events
• What We Learned
• What We’re Doing to Improve
Collaboration/Needs
• Block Party
• Promotion – Neighborhood, Area Businesses
• Physical Presence
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
A strong partnership with the festivities of Parktacular and the Parktacular Board is enhancing two
of the four strategic directions that state “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community” and “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture,
and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.”
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Lawful Charitable Gambling.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide information for Council discussion on lawful charitable
gambling including past history, gambling regulations, gambling authority, and the status of current
gambling organizations including gambling expenditures in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• To what extent does the City have ability to limit where gambling proceeds are spent?
• To what extent can the City encourage these groups to spend their proceeds in St. Louis Park?
• Does the Council feel there is a need for additional gambling requirements and/or restrictions
(within state law limitations) to the existing city gambling ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
As a result of a charitable gambling premises permit application being considered by the City
Council at its March 15, 2010 meeting, concerns and questions were raised by council members
regarding charitable gambling, whether proceed expenditures are benefiting St. Louis Park, and what
legal authority the city has over lawful gambling operations. At that meeting, a premises permit
application for Minneapolis NE Lions Club to conduct gambling at Texa-Tonka Lanes, 8200
Minnetonka Boulevard, was presented for Council consideration. Consideration of the application
was continued until April 19 to allow for the Council to discuss the matter at its April 12 study
session. Community Charities held the premises permit at Texa-Tonka Lanes and their lease
agreement was to expire on March 31, 2010. Given the fact the consideration of the application was
continued by the Council into April, Texa-Tonka Lanes owner Jeff Kristal has chosen to renew the
lease agreement with Community Charities in order to continue lawful gambling at his
establishment without interruption. This means there will be no need for Council consideration of
the previous application from Minneapolis NE Lions Club for Texa-Tonka Lanes.
Lawful Gambling Basics
Lawful gambling can benefit cities by providing entertainment for citizens, helps out local
businesses, and raises revenues to support worthy purposes. Minnesota cities do not license lawful
gambling; the State of Minnesota is the licensing authority. Only qualified organizations may
conduct lawful gambling who are registered nonprofit corporations in Minnesota or designated as
exempt from the payment of income taxes by the IRS, and who must be in operation at least three
years with at least 15 members.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Premises Permits for gambling are connected to the address of the premise location. The owner of a
premises has authority whether to lease their space or renew a lease to an existing gambling
organization.
Organizations are no longer required to renew their premises permits with the State. Licenses issued
are now perpetual and valid unless suspended or revoked by the Minnesota Gambling Board,
terminated by the organization, or if the license lapses.
Definitions:
Gross receipts - all receipts derived from lawful gambling sales
Gross profits - gross receipts collected from lawful gambling less prizes
Net profits - gross profits minus all allowable expenses including rent, local tax, and state tax
History
Previous City Council discussions have occurred throughout the years regarding various distance and
parking requirements, distribution of proceeds, local tax, and trade area lawful purpose expenditures
resulting in approximately 17 amendments to the gambling ordinance since 1978. The conclusion
in many of the council discussions was that the city did not have authority over the state law
regarding what specific lawful purpose expenditures must be made. Excerpts from the meeting
minutes of these discussions are attached to this report. One reason the “trade area” provision in
state law originated was to basically cover school districts which often included surrounding
communities. The following is a brief history of various regulations relating to the City’s gambling
ordinance:
1978 – City began licensing and regulating lawful gambling. First gambling Ordinance No. 1430
required organizations to be in existence in the City of St. Louis Park for at least 3 years.
1984 – State Legislature created the State Gambling Control Board to maintain the integrity of
lawful gambling through “state” licensing and “state” regulation.
1989 – City gambling ordinance amended to allow “all” MN qualified organizations opportunity
to apply for a gambling premises permit in St. Louis Park.
1990 – City gambling ordinance amended to require 10% of net profits to be contributed to City;
no more than 2 locations per organization, ALL proceeds (net profits less expenses)
expended within trade area, $250 investigation fee.
1999 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require 2% local tax and 90% of proceeds to be
expended within trade area, remove investigation fee, remove 10% city contribution.
2001 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require .75% local tax.
2005 – City gambling Ordinance amended to require 1/10th of 1% local tax.
Gambling Authority
Minnesota Gambling Control Board (GCB)
• Regulates conduct of lawful gambling
• Conducts compliance reviews, site inspections, and civil investigations
• Committees include Compliance Review Group, Rules Committee, Legislative Committee,
and Executive Committee
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Minnesota Department of Revenue
• Collects state lawful gambling tax and conducts tax audits
Department of Public Safety Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement
• Investigates illegal gambling and conducts criminal investigations
City Authority - MN State Statute 349.213
• Approval/denial of permits
• Prohibition of gambling
• Expenditure of gambling funds in trade area (city ordinance/state law requirement)
• Cannot require an organization to make a contribution to the city as a condition of approval.
• Impose Local Gambling Tax up to 3% of gross proceeds OR investigation fee of $250.
(St. Louis Park currently imposes 1/10 of 1% local tax to cover gambling administration costs)
• Impose contribution of 10% of net profits to a city administered fund for lawful
purposes including City Fire and Police Departments. (St. Louis Park currently does not
require a 10% contribution fund)
• More stringent city regulation options allowable:
1. Limit only organizations that exist in St. Louis Park.
2. Require a certain number of years organizations must exist in St. Louis Park.
3. Limit the number of premises locations each organization may have in St. Louis Park.
4. Limit the total number of premises permits allowed in the entire city.
5. Regulate the days and times and where lawful gambling may occur.
Although cities do not have authority to require gambling funds to be donated to specific
organizations, there is no law that prohibits a city from providing a “list” to applicants of suggested
recipients allowable for donation consideration. If such a list would be provided, it may be
important that careful and impartial consideration be given to the suggested recipients included on
this list.
Neighboring Cities Gambling Regulations
Edina – Gambling prohibited
Blaine – Organization principal business operations within city for at least 2 years, no more than 4
locations per organization, 10% contribution to city, ALL expenditures to trade area.
Brooklyn Center – Organization must be in existence in city for at least 3 years.
Eden Prairie – Limited to 4 premises within city, plus 1 premise for each 10,000 persons residing in
excess of 40,000, 10% contribution to city fund, 30% expenditures to trade area, 1% local tax.
Maple Grove – Physical site for organization’s headquarters or office located within city at least 2
years, 10% contribution to city fund, 50% expenditures to trade area, ½ % local tax.
New Hope – Only local organizations which have operated within city for at least 3 years, 10%
contribution to city fund, 15% expenditures to trade area.
Plymouth – Organization headquarters within city at least 2 years, 10% contribution to city fund,
75% expenditures to trade area.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Lawful Purpose Expenditures
State Statute gives cities the authority to specify the percentage of lawful purpose expenditures to be
spent in their trade area. St. Louis Park City Code Section 15-8 requires each organization
conducting lawful gambling within the city to expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures
within the “trade area” of St. Louis Park which includes Minneapolis, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka,
Plymouth and Golden Valley. The city does not have authority on what specific lawful purpose
expenditures must be made. That authority rests with the organization and its membership.
Lawful purpose expenditure amounts include all taxes, fees, and charitable lawful purposes
contributions. Expenditures are determined from net profit after all prizes and allowable expenses
including payroll, rent, advertising, product, and office supplies are accounted for. Organizations
are allowed to carry over to the next month any unalloted profit expenditures. A chart listing the
types of Expenditures Allowed by State law is attached to this report.
Organizations report their monthly lawful purpose expenditures to the State of Minnesota and the
City of St. Louis Park on a state required form known as “Schedule C/D”. A separate Schedule C/D
is not required for each site location. Attached to this report is a sample of State Schedule C/D for
Community Charities Organization which shows donations from the Texa-Tonka Lanes site.
Local Gambling Tax
A local gambling tax may be imposed to cover only the expenses incurred by a city to administer
gambling activities. Cities may impose this tax up to 3% of gross profits (gross receipts minus
prizes) awarded to raise revenues necessary to cover city costs. The City has not collected a local tax
since 2005 in order to use the accumulated fund balance towards costs associated with gambling
administration and enforcement through year 2009. Costs allowable associated with regulating
gambling include the following:
• Background investigations
• Administration of premises application
• Random police compliance visits
• Questions and correspondence staff time
With the fund balance completely expended, beginning January 1, 2010 the city reinstated the local
gambling tax of 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) of the gross receipts of a licensed
organization from all lawful gambling less prizes paid out by the organization. Should council
choose to increase this local tax percentage amount, a tax greater than 1% cannot be justified to
cover current annual expenses at this time.
Projected amounts for a 1% local tax increase using past data from current organizations is shown in
the attached Gambling Activity spreadsheet.
Organizations are required to submit a new city form reporting 2010 monthly local tax and
expenditures in addition to copies of required monthly state gambling reports. Attached are copies
of state and city submitted reports and forms for organizations operating since January 2010.
(Hopkins Raspberry Festival started operation in March 2010 at McCoy’s Restaurant).
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
10% City Contribution Fund
As established by an Ordinance, cities may require licensed organizations to contribute up to 10%
per year of net profits (gross profits minus all expenses and any local and state taxes) from local
lawful gambling to a city administered fund. The funds may be spent only for charitable
contributions allowed by state law (A codes) as follows:
A1 To 501(c)(3) organization or 501(c)(4) festival organization
A2 Relieving effects of poverty, homelessness, or disability
A3 Program for education, prevention, or treatment of problem gambling
A4 Public or private nonprofit school
A5 Scholarship fund
A6 Military service recognition (open to public) or support of active military
A7 Activities and facilities for youth
A10 Expenditures for police, fire, and other emergency or public safety-related services,
equipment, and training (not allowed- pension or retirement funds)
A11 Church
A13 With DNR approval, wildlife management projects/activities that benefit public-at-
large such as trails
A14 Nutritional programs, food shelves, and congregate dining programs primarily for
persons 62 and older or disabled
A15 Community arts organizations, or sponsorship of community arts program
A19 Humanitarian service – recognizing volunteerism or philanthropy
In fiscal year 2009, a total of $7,100,000 was contributed to Minnesota units of government for
contributions allowed under code A-10. In calendar year 2008, 84 cities required 10% fund
contributions as mandated by city ordinance.
The City currently does not require a 10% contribution fund. Projected 10% contribution revenue
using past data from current organizations is shown in the attached Gambling Activity spreadsheet.
St. Louis Park Gambling Establishments
Currently there are three qualified organizations licensed by the State who operate pull tab gambling
at five different location premises in the City of St. Louis Park.
1. Community Charities, 115 S. Riverfront Drive, Mankato, MN
• Operating at American Legion Post 282 since 2002
• Operating at Park Tavern since 2002
• Operating at Texa-Tonka Lanes since 2002
• Operates at over 40 other locations in Minnesota
Attached is a complete list of Community Charities donations to St. Louis Park from April 2004
through September 2009. Various large donations to St. Louis Park since 2004 included:
Community Foundation $200,000; Parktacular $20,000; Youth Bowling $12,000; Youth
Baseball $10,000; Park Nicollet Foundation $7,500; STEP $7,000; Twin West Foundation
$5,500; Fire Department fire engine restoration $5,000; Westwood Nature Center $2,000.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 6
2. St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association
• Operating at Bunny’s since 1992
Past donations to St. Louis Park for Ice Time included approx. $174,000 in 2009 and $72,500
in 2008.
3. Hopkins Raspberry Festival, 175 Jackson Ave No. Hopkins, MN
• Operating at McCoy’s since March 2010
• Previously operated at Al’s Bar since 2002 and Laredo’s in 2009 whose businesses closed
Past donations to St. Louis Park Parktacular since 2004 were approx. $38,000
The attached Gambling Activity spreadsheets show gross receipts, prizes paid out, gross profits,
allowable expenses, taxes, and net profits of each premises location in 2008 and 2009.
Rental Lease Amounts
Organizations may conduct lawful gambling only on premises it owns or leases and may choose from
different rental amount options. Booth operations are when organization employees operate
gambling sales and the rental amount is 0-10% of gross profits per month not to exceed $1,750. Bar
operations are when establishment employees operate gambling sales usually at the bar and the rental
amount is 0-20% of gross profits. Rental amounts vary each month.
Average Monthly Rental Amounts for current and past organizations
Community Charities
American Legion Post 282 $ 1,750
Park Tavern 1,709
Texa Tonka Lanes 505
Hopkins Raspberry Assoc.
Al's Bar (thru Jul 09) 1,479
Laredo's (Feb 09 thru Dec 09) 224
McCoy's (starting Mar 2010)
SLP Hockey Boosters Assoc.
Bunny's 1,750
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Projections from finance department calculations indicate revenue of approximately $35,000 -
$40,000 per year if the city required a 10% contribution fund from the current licensed gambling
establishments.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Attachments: Expenditures Allowed (State Law “A” codes)
2009 State Gambling Expenditure Breakdown Chart
2010 City Reporting Forms including sample Schedule C/D Expenditures
2009 City Gambling Activity Spreadsheet
2008 City Gambling Activity Spreadsheet
Community Charities Letter with SLP donations 2004-2009
Excerpts from meeting minutes of past gambling discussion
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Darla Monson, Finance Accountant
Review by: Tom Scott, St. Louis Park City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 8
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 9
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 10
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 11
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 12
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 13
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 14
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 15
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 16
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 17
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 18
Gambling ActivityCity of St. Louis Park LocationsJanuary 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009Organization/SiteGross ReceiptsPrizes Paid OutGross ProfitAllowable ExpensesState Combined Receipts TaxState Regulatory TaxNet Profit1 Local Tax at 1%(up to 3% of Gross Profit)2Max Amt for Contrib Fund (up to 10% of Net Profit)Community Charities American Legion Post 282 $1,815,155 $1,530,357 $284,798 $136,107 $56,873 $1,815 $90,003 $2,848 $9,000 Park Tavern$1,641,143 $1,373,585 $267,558 $146,814 $47,998 $1,641 $71,104 $2,676 $7,110 Texa Tonka Lanes$145,231 $113,912 $31,319 $18,423$0$145 $12,751 $313 $1,275Hopkins Raspberry Assoc. Al's Bar (thru Jul 09)$595,954 $480,419 $115,535 $88,860 $1,631$596 $24,448 $1,155 $2,445 Laredo's (Feb 09 thru Dec 09)$153,245 $127,706 $25,539 $10,074$0$153 $15,311 $255 $1,531 McCoy's (starting Mar 2010)SLP Hockey Boosters Assoc. Bunny's$2,963,408 $2,488,789 $474,619 $182,747 $115,434 $2,963 $173,475 $4,746 $17,348$7,314,135 $6,114,768 $1,199,367 $583,025 $221,936 $7,314 $387,092$11,994 $38,709Notes:1. A City may impose a local gambling tax of up to 3 percent of gross profits to cover City expenses to regulate gambling activities, such as staff time, legal fees, and background checks. This tax may be imposed only to the extent necessary to cover the costs to regulate gambling within the jurisdiction. Currently, the City imposes a tax of 1/10 of 1%. A tax of any more than 1% cannot be justified to cover current annual expenses. Annual reporting to the State Gambling Control Board is required.2. A City may require a contribution of up to 10 percent of net profits each year to a fund administered by the City. Annual reporting to the State Gambling Control Board is required. A list of the expenditures these funds can be used for is included in the Council report.Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 19
Gambling ActivityCity of St. Louis Park LocationsJanuary 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008Organization/SiteGross ReceiptsPrizes Paid OutGross ProfitAllowable ExpensesState Combined Receipts TaxState Regulatory TaxNet Profit1 Local Tax at 1%(up to 3% of Gross Profit)2Max Amt for Contrib Fund (up to 10% of Net Profit)Community Charities American Legion Post 282 $1,856,855 $1,567,579 $289,276 $136,148 $59,000 $1,857 $92,271 $2,893 $9,227 Park Tavern$1,347,250 $1,071,061 $276,189 $152,650 $33,010 $1,347 $89,182 $2,762 $8,918 Texa Tonka Lanes$179,780 $133,819 $45,961 $30,901$0$180 $14,880 $460 $1,488Hopkins Raspberry Assoc. Al's Bar$1,094,671 $888,420 $206,251 $105,454 $20,128 $1,095 $79,574 $2,063 $7,957SLP Hockey Boosters Assoc. Bunny's$2,715,857 $2,276,416 $439,441 $173,660 $102,809 $2,716 $160,257 $4,394 $16,026$7,194,413 $5,937,295 $1,257,118 $598,813 $214,946 $7,194 $436,164$12,571 $43,616Notes:1. A City may impose a local gambling tax of up to 3 percent of gross profits to cover City expenses to regulate gambling activities, such as staff time, legal fees, and background checksThis tax may be imposed only to the extent necessary to cover the costs to regulate gambling within the jurisdiction. Currently, the City imposes a tax of 1/10 of 1%. A tax of any more than 1% cannot be justified to cover current annual expenses. Annual reporting to the State Gambling Control Board is required.2. A City may require a contribution of up to 10 percent of net profits each year to a fund administered by the City. Annual reporting to the State Gambling Control Board is required. A list of the expenditures these funds can be used for is included in the Council report.Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 20
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 21
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 22
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 23
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 24
Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes regarding Gambling
July 2, 1990 City Council Meeting - 8c. Charitable gambling licenses 1st Reading
It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Tschida, to approve, set
second reading for July 16, 1990 and authorize summary publication.
The City Manager briefly outlined the proposed changes in the ordinance. Basically, the ordinance
was being updated to come into comformance with recent action of the State Legislature.
Councilmember Haun alluded to the problems Council has had with the recent applicants for
licenses or license renewal. He asked if those applicants being checked out by the State Gambling
Commission proved to be clean, would the Council now have to “grandfather” them in for a period
of one year or would Council have the option not to do that.
City Attorney responded that one application, not acted upon wither way by the Council, would
return to the state and could have been issued a license. He believed the City exercised its veto
power in the other instance and therefore not grandfathered.
The motion passed 4-0
July 16, 1990 City Council Meeting - 8e. Lawful gambling licenses Ordinance
The City Manager briefly discussed the changes in the ordinance since first reading. He stated
Council would have to decide, with regard to the investigation fee, whether the city would impose a
$250 investigation fee or a 3% local tax.
Richaed Bazbrielson, Animal Humans Society of Hennepin County, urged the council to reconsider
so that 501C3s, such as the Animal Humane Society as charities, can be differentiated from
fraternals or clubs in that they are required by state law to give their monies away.
Councilmember Battaglia, concerned about the maximum amount of money going to a given
charity, wondered if a limit could be imposed on the amount of administration costs an agency can
collect in order to operate the charitable gambling portion of its operation.
The City Attorney recollected that the City as part of its police powers is not allowed to do that.
This is left to the State Charitable Gambling Board.
Mayor Hanks wondered if the 10% contribution to the City from charitable gambling proceeds
would dry up the monies now being contributed towards scholarships at the high school. The City
Manager responded that the City had received no response from the gambling managers regarding
the proposal.
The Mayor asked what the city intended to do with the 10%.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 25
(Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes regarding Gambling continued)
It was moved by Councilmember Mitchel, seconded by Councilmember Meland to adopt
Ordinance 1834-90 providing for definitions, premises permits, exemptions, fees, taxes, and trade
area contributions. The motion carried 7-0
December 6, 1999 Council Meeting - - 8a. Second reading Ordinance 2148-99
Cindy Larsen, City Clerk presented a staff report and recommended approval with an effective date
of January 1, 2000.
Bruce Berthiume, 3125 Oregon Avenue South, “My concern with the proposed administrative tax is
that our organization would end up being over 25% of the cost of the whole fund due to the amount
of the sales that we have. Our organization does not feel that is right. We feel that the burden that
the St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters would have would be greater than our share as far as the
administrative costs”.
Cindy Larsen, City Clerk stated that the City was not allowed by Statute to adjust that for
organizations.
Ed McDevitt, 3379 Brownlow Avenue South, “In checking with our bookkeeper, I found out that
we did not spend any money outside of the St. Louis Park area and I would be in favor of the 90%
trade area restriction.
Cindy Larsen, City Clerk stated that rather than completing new sets of forms, organizations would
be required only to make a photocopy of forms already prepared for the State Board. She noted that
the only additional form was the lawful purpose expenditure form.
Councilmember Latz stated that he reviewed the data from the organizations on the amount of
proceeds being spent within the trade area and after extrapolating, questioned the need to impose
any legislative trade area restrictions at this time when almost all of the organizations in St. Louis
Park are currently spending their money in St. Louis Park (trade area).
He was also concerned if the language in the ordinance would get at the information that was
actually desired.
Tom Flugar, 2900 Pennsylvania Avenue, noted an error in the staff report in Section 13-1608. The
amount of tax to be collected should be 2% rather than 3% as stated in the draft ordinance. He
asked if the amount that a certain organization would contribute could be capped.
Ms. Larsen, City Clerk indicated that the Statute was very well defined and this was not possible.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize
summary publication with the exception of the portion regarding the trade area restriction.
The motion failed for lack of a second to the motion.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 26
(Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes regarding Gambling continued)
Councilmember Young believed that if the Council extrapolated with the information received from
the organizations to date we would find that the other organizations are giving less than 90% to the
trade area and this may be a reason why they have not responded yet.
He stated that the City has had significant problems with some organizations in the past where
virtually 100% of their proceeds never stayed in St. Louis Park or the trade area and we can prevent
this from happening in the future.
Councilmember Sanger concurred with Councilmember Young. She asked staff to clarify how the
City could adjust 2% tax rate annually depending on what the expenses are.
Ms. Larsen, City Clerk explained that at the end of the year if the City finds that they collected too
much or too little, they can act to change the ordinance to modify the amount of tax collected. She
indicated that a new vote was not necessary unless the City decided they wanted to change the
ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger questioned if something couldn’t be built into the ordinance that indexes
the tax based on the cost so it is predictable for organizations of what the tax will be from year to
year.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager suggested that the percentage be adjusted one time in the future which
would be either up or down within the 3% range. Mr. Scott, City Attorney concurred with the City
Manager.
She noted that the trade area was for lawful purposes within the trade area, but was very loosely
defined and City could set parameters.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what the cost impact was going to be on the organizations to
obtain certification from a CPA.
Ms. McGann, Director of Finance stated that statute already requires organizations to do an annual
audit and that certification by a CPA stating that the organization is in compliance with state and
local ordinances is already part of that audit. She did not see that this would be an additional
expense to the organizations.
Councilmember Nelson stated that since the CPA was being asked to certify that the funds are being
expended in the trade area this would be new information and be an additional cost to the
organization.
He stated that he believed that the attitude of the City Council was that this is money generated in
St. Louis Park, therefore it is ours and we should be able to spend it. He did not agree with that
attitude. He stated that he would be voting against the ordinance.
Tom Flugar, 2900 Pennsylvania Avenue and Bruce Berthiume, 3125 Oregon Avenue South,
indicated that their audits were done at the end of their individual fiscal year not calendar year.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 27
(Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes regarding Gambling continued)
Councilmember Sanger asked if organizations do their reporting to the state on a fiscal year which is
different than the calendar could this be accepted and the City monitor base this on the individual’s
fiscal year rather than a calendar year.
Ms. Larsen indicated that this was possible. Mr. Meyer, City Manager suggested taking out the
dates in the ordinance to reflect this.
Councilmember recommended a friendly amendment to the ordinance requiring certification
starting with the next fiscal year for an organization that ends on or after January 1, 2000.
Councilmember Latz asked staff to read the letter that was sent to organizations requesting
information. Ms. Larsen read a copy of letter that was sent to each organization.
Councilmember Latz stated that he found it difficult to determine any percentages of what was
currently being directed toward the trade area from the information organizations had submitted in
response to that letter. He would prefer not to make a decision without having this information.
Councilmember Young believed that it was important to move forward on this issue to set guidelines
for future organizations that will protect the City and won’t have to be revisited again.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified the amendments to the ordinance: That the trade area restriction
reporting would apply to the fiscal year beginning after January, 2000 and simplify language in
Section 13-1607 to read “In addition each organization must submit an annual report to the City
listing all lawful purpose expenditures . . .”
Councilmember Young accepted the Councilmember Sanger’s friendly amendment.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to adopt the
ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 5-2.
Councilmembers Latz and Nelson opposed.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 3)Page 28
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Contracting Relating to Women, Minority and Small Business Owners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the information provided in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council want Staff to undertake a more detailed analysis and assessment of
contracting programs relating to women, minority, and small business owners?
• What is the scope or direction of the analysis desired by Council?
BACKGROUND:
Councilmember Ross requested the Council have a conversation about contracting as it relates to
women and minority owned businesses. The City itself has no specific policy regarding this topic
area. In order to assist the conversation, attached is information from our Housing Authority,
Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis.
In conversations with The League of MN Cities, they suggested we look at Hennepin County,
Minneapolis and St. Paul for policies related to this topic. We did not find any information on this
in other suburban cities in our metro area.
What we did find are policy statements that encourage bidding by women, minority and small
business owners and an ordinance specific to the City of Minneapolis and their contracting division
(attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
“St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”
Attachments: Applicable Information on St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA)
Applicable Information on Bid Processes from Hennepin County Website
Applicable Information from City of Minneapolis Website
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Assisted by: Lisa Songle, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Applicable Information on St. Louis Park Housing Authority (HA)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) encourages the HA to set goals,
but they do not require specific goals. They do require, that to the greatest extent feasible, efforts
shall be made to make use of small and minority-owned businesses, women’s business enterprises,
and other individuals or firms located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area
of the HA project when possible. We are required to report to HUD on Section 3 businesses
(Section 3 is the legal basis for providing jobs for residents and awarding contracts to businesses in
areas receiving certain types of HUD financial assistance,), but do not have any requirement to
report on minority or woman owned businesses. However, the HA does have a Procurement Policy
that includes required efforts that are taken with respect to these types of businesses.
Section from St. Louis Park Housing Authority - Procurement Policy
ASSISTANCE TO SMALL AND OTHER BUSINESSES
Required Efforts
Consistent with Presidential Executive Orders 11625, 12138, and 12432, and Section 3 of the
HUD Act of 1968, all feasible efforts shall be made to make use of small and minority-owned
businesses, women’s business enterprises, and other individuals or firms located in or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the area of the HA project when possible. Such efforts shall
include, but shall not be limited to:
A. Including such firms, when qualified, on solicitation mailing lists;
B. Encouraging their participation through direct solicitation of bids or proposals whenever they are
potential sources;
C. Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to
permit maximum participation by such firms;
D. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation
by such firms;
E. Using the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration, and the Minority
Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce;
F. Including in contracts, to the greatest extent feasible, a clause requiring contractors, to provide
opportunities for training and employment for lower income residents of the project area and to
award subcontracts for work in connection with the project to business concerns which provide
opportunities to low-income residents, as described in 24 CFR Part 135 (so-called Section 3
businesses); and
G. Requiring prime contractors, when subcontracting is anticipated, to take the positive steps listed
above.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Definitions
1. A small business is defined as a business that is: independently owned; not dominant in its
field of operation; and not an affiliate or subsidiary of a business dominant in its field of
operation. The size standards in 13 CFR Part 121 should be used to determine business size.
2. A minority-owned business is defined as a business which is at least 51% owned by one or
more minority group members; or, in the case of a publicly-owned business, one in which at
least 51% of its voting stock is owned by one or more minority group members, and whose
management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.
Minority group members include, but are not limited to Black Americans, Hispanic
Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Indian Americans, and
Hasidic Jewish Americans.
3. A women’s business enterprise is defined as a business that is at least 51% owned by a
woman or women who are U.S. citizens and who control and operate the business.
4. A “Section 3 business concern” is as defined under 24 CFR Part 135.
5. A labor surplus area business is defined as a business which, together with its immediate
subcontractors, will incur more than 50% of the cost of performing the contract in an area of
concentrated unemployment or underemployment, as defined by the DOL in 20 CFR Part
654, Subpart A, and in the list of labor surplus areas published by the Employment and
Training Administration.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Applicable Information on Bid Processes from Hennepin County Website
Affirmative Action (AA) Contract Requirements
Contractors who have one or more non-construction contracts that total over $100,000 and who
have over 30 employees must meet Affirmative Action requirements.
Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Goals
If a County contract exceeds $100,000, a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) participation goal may be
set based on the opportunity for subcontracting and the availability of SBE's. Successful bidders
must meet SBE subcontracting goals or demonstrate, through written documentation, that it made
good faith efforts to meet the goal.
Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program
Hennepin County is committed to ensuring that SBE’s in our community have access to contracting
and subcontracting opportunities in Hennepin County. The SBE Program is administered by the
Purchasing and Contract Services Division. This program focuses on ensuring that small businesses
including women and minority-owned businesses receive information regarding County contracting
opportunities and encourages SBE’s to bid on projects.
If a County contract exceeds $100,000, an SBE goal may be set based on the opportunity for
subcontracting and the availability of SBE's. Successful bidders must meet SBE subcontracting goals
or demonstrate, through written documentation, that it made good faith efforts to meet the goal.
CERT Program
Only small businesses that are "certified" can be counted towards meeting the SBE goal. Are you a
small business? Not sure how to become certified?
Hennepin County participates in a "one-stop shop" certification collaborative with the City of
Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, and Ramsey County. With one application, you can be certified in
four jurisdictions and gain access to business assistance information for their respective programs.
Learn more about how to get certified by calling 651-266-8900. Directories of Certified SBE's are
also available on the CERT Program web site.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Applicable Information from City of Minneapolis Website
Contract Compliance
The following is a list of Contract Compliance requirements:
Affirmative Action Plan (Minneapolis Ordinance 139.50)
All companies doing $50,000 or more worth of business with the City, at one time, or
accumulatively, during one calendar year must submit an Affirmative Action Plan, which includes
goals and timetables for the hire, promotion and retention of minorities and women. Construction
trade goals are 11% minority participation and 6% female participation.
Small & Underutilized Business Program (Minneapolis Ordinance 423)
Professional services contracts over $50,000, and construction project contracts over $100,000 must
participate in the Small & Underutilized Business Program. Participation goals for Women and
Minority Owned-Business are established for each project.
Pre-Award Review (Minneapolis Ordinance 139.50)
All developers and contractors doing $50,000 or more worth of business with the City must submit
to a pre-award compliance review. This review requires completion of the Pre-Construction Booklet
(PDF).
Prevailing Wage/Davis-Bacon Act
Companies working with construction contracts of $2,000 or more of Federal CDGB or HOME
funds must comply with the Davis-Bacon Federal Employment Act.
Compliance Reporting
All construction related contractors are required to submit prevailing wage and labor participation by
race and sex. Electronic reports can be submitted through the Twin City Compliance Network.
The Minneapolis City Council has passed an Equal Benefits Ordinance and a Living Wage
Ordinance. It is the responsibility of the Contract Compliance Unit to respond to complaints only.
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on Minnesota Jobs Bill.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to apprise the EDA and City Council regarding a newly-enacted Jobs Bill and seek
feedback on how it could be utilized to stimulate St. Louis Park businesses and redevelopment
projects. Given the short window of opportunity allowed under the Jobs Bill (as explained further
below) staff felt it necessary to have a conversation as soon as possible with the City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How could the newly-enacted Jobs Bill be used to stimulate St. Louis Park businesses and
redevelopment projects?
BACKGROUND:
The State of Minnesota Jobs Bill (HF2695) was passed by the House and Senate last week and
signed by the Governor on April 1, 2010. Its primary objective is to stimulate economic
development and job creation. This legislation creates tax credits for small business investment and
historic structure rehabilitation; provides authorization to local governments to expand use of special
assessments for certain energy improvements; and provides authorization to local governments to
finance transportation infrastructure and green building and sustainable design projects. The law
also provides new opportunities to use TIF from new districts and existing districts to stimulate new
construction of private buildings that break ground within the next year or two. The details of this
law are emerging, but here are some of the basics:
There are three specific options for expanded use of TIF which are temporary in nature:
1. A new type of district has been created called a compact development district. This District
has a maximum term of 25 years and can only be used for construction of new
commercial/industrial buildings that are at least three times the square footage of the
commercial buildings that they are replacing. No blight findings are required for the existing
buildings, TIF generated from the development can be used for administration of the
district, land acquisition, demolition and site preparation costs, installation of public
infrastructure improvements serving the district but excluding streets, highways, and parking
areas. The authority to establish these types of districts sunsets on June 30, 2012.
2. Economic development districts with a term of 9 years of TIF can be established for any type
of commercial or residential development as long as:
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
A. The municipality finds that the project will create or retain jobs in the State,
including construction jobs, and that construction of the project would not have
commenced before July 1, 2011, without the authority providing assistance.
B. Construction of the project begins no later than July 1, 2011; and
C. The request for certification of the district is made no later than June 30, 2011.
It also appears that the use of TIF is broadened for economic development districts that
meet these criteria.
3. Cash balances in existing TIF districts can be used to provide improvements, loans,
interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the
construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if doing so
will create or retain jobs in the State, including construction jobs, and that the
construction commences before July 1, 2011, and would not have commenced before
that date without the assistance. The only procedural requirement is a public hearing
with a 10 day notice in the newspaper. Any cash balances must be expended by
December 31, 2011.
These changes are significant and offer opportunities to help projects in a variety of ways.
The EDA and City Council may wish to consider how this economic stimulus legislation may
benefit St. Louis Park businesses and redevelopment projects. We particularly draw your attention to
the third temporary TIF option regarding use of existing TIF cash balances. The City has some cash
balances which could be used to help local businesses make improvements to retain and/or expand
employment. In fact, it may be applicable in the very near term. We are aware that at least one local
company is currently in the process of reviewing its St. Louis Park operations and considering its
future in Minnesota. A program using the new TIF authorization could be made available to help
this company remain and grow here. Staff wishes to discuss how the EDA might craft a program to
help this and other businesses. Time is of the essence; the state authorization expires at the end of
next year. Staff envisions a simple, straight forward program to assist local industrial or office
businesses with their prospective construction, remodeling or tenant improvement projects. We
have asked Ehlers to give us guidance on the funds we would have available.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6
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:
School Property Use Parameters/Public Process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the information provided in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What are the basic land use parameters the Council would like to consider for the two properties in
question?
Is the proposed public process outlined in this staff report in alignment with the Councils
expectations?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council discussed the School District decision to close the Cedar Manor and Eliot
buildings at its study session on March 8th. Basic background information on both sites was
provided at that meeting. The direction from the City Council was that staff should explore
potential parameters for appropriate uses for the sites, and outline a process for moving forward
modeled on the process used to create design guidelines for the former Al’s Bar site at Excelsior and
France Avenue.
The purpose of this Study Session agenda item is to discuss two aspects of the city’s response to the
school district’s decision to close Cedar Manor School and Eliot Community Center. One is to
discuss City expectations and basic parameters for the reuse of the sites. The second is to discuss a
possible process involving the School District, the neighborhoods, and other stakeholders to reach
agreement on the future use/redevelopment for the Eliot and Cedar Manor sites.
Land Use Parameters
In the background information for each site provided in the March 8th study session report it was
noted that both the Eliot and Cedar Manor sites are zoned for single family residential use. They are
guided in the city’s Comprehensive Plan for “Civic” land use. The existing zoning provides a basic
guide for what uses are currently allowed on these sites. The City Council directed staff to provide
further recommendations for potential land use and redevelopment opportunities for the sites.
Information on the sites and thoughts on potential use parameters for each site are provided below.
These ideas are provided for discussion purposes while recognizing that discussions with the School
District and the community planning process suggested would likely generate other ideas or
potential guidance for the sites.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Cedar Manor School
Approximately 60% of the site is open space, mostly on the east side, which is the area of the Cedar
Manor Park. The park is a neighborhood park that is operated and maintained by the City. The
City’s Comprehensive Parks, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan states that if an opportunity
to acquire this land becomes available, it should be considered and evaluated; the park is an
important component of the park system, and should be retained and/or acquired with a
development plan. Most of the open space/park area is in the floodplain and therefore
undevelopable. New development would have to either reuse the existing building or use the school
building site for new building.
Access is good to the site, via Highway 169 and Cedar Lake Road. Access to the site does not need
to use local residential streets.
Cedar Manor School
Range of potential uses for Reuse/Redevelopment
Uses not appropriate for the site include industrial or commercial uses, as those uses are more
appropriate in areas where they are grouped together in industrial parks and commercial areas.
Many commercial services are available within one mile of this site. Office use is also not likely, as
there are several designated and available office areas in office parks within the area.
Residential would be the most appropriate use suited for this site. A range or mix of residential uses
should be considered and evaluated when working with a committee to determine what would both
fit into the area and be viable in the market place. There may also be the opportunity for a higher
density residential use on this site, because of its freeway access and location, and because it has
significant open space directly adjacent to it. It is also physically separated for access and by distance
from the single family homes nearby. The site could be designed to address unmet needs in the
housing market place. Institutional uses, such as a school, library, or religious institution could also
be appropriate, depending on the specific characteristics of a proposed use.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Eliot School
The Eliot school site is relatively flat and has access from 3 sides. The building is in need of major
repair, so reuse is questionable and further detailed evaluation would be necessary.
Approximately ½ of the site on the north is open space. It is owned and maintained by the School
District; it is not designated as a city park. There is also basketball court and playground equipment
on the site, owned and maintained by the School District. The Parks, Open Space and Natural
Resources Plan does not identify this site for a park, as Jersey Park is 1 ½ - 2 blocks to the north. It
is a neighborhood park with basketball court, play structure, picnic tables, trail and horseshoes.
Hampshire Park also serves this neighborhood. It is about 2 ½ blocks to north east, and is an open
space park.
Eliot School
Range of potential uses for Reuse/Redevelopment
Uses not appropriate for the site include industrial or commercial uses, as those uses are more
appropriate in nearby areas where they are grouped together in industrial parks and commercial
areas. Many local commercial services are available within ½ of a mile of this site at Louisiana
Avenue; many regional services are available at Park Place Boulevard. Office use is not likely, as
there are several designated and available office areas in office parks within the area.
Residential would be the most appropriate use suited for this site. A range or mix of residential uses
should be considered and evaluated when working with a committee to determine what would both
fit into the area and be viable in the market place. There is the opportunity for innovation in site
design with a site of this size with excellent access, and an opportunity to provide diversity in the
types of housing units or to address unmet needs in the housing market place. Institutional uses,
such as a school, library, or religious institution could also be appropriate, depending on the specific
characteristics of a proposed use.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Summary of Land Use Parameters
Both Cedar Manor and Eliot schools are located in residential areas. They each provide a significant
opportunity for redevelopment in the community, as development sites of this size are not common
in a fully developed city.
Industrial and commercial development is ill-suited to either of these sites, as they are located in
residential areas. Office could be a viable use however, there are many designated areas for office
development in the area, and a lone office building would be isolated, and not fit in with the overall
development plan of the community. Each site could be reused for an institutional use; however the
demand for institutional uses seems to be waning, with schools closing and the potential for some
religious institutions to close. An appropriate institutional use could work on either site.
Both sites have enough space to achieve a residential housing development that could add to the
diversity of housing in the community. The size of the sites allow an opportunity for new types of
residential uses, a mix with a variety of residential types, or possibly an innovative site plan than
uniquely blends into the neighborhood.
Community Process
The changes pending for the Cedar Manor and Eliot school sites are significant changes for the
community as a whole and the neighbors immediately surrounding the school sites. With the
decision to sell these sites it is appropriate to undertake a more detailed review of the sites to prepare
land use recommendations and guidelines for each site’s use and development. The city is
responsible for land use planning and is ideally suited to work with the neighborhoods. A
community based planning process would set the stage for any Comprehensive Plan land use and
zoning changes necessary for redevelopment of the sites.
Staff proposes the City take the lead in such a process, working with the school district,
neighborhoods and other stakeholders to develop concept plans and land use design guidelines for
the reuse of the sites. In this proposed process, the City and School District would work together in
partnership toward planning for the reuse/redevelopment of these sites. This would entail the City
facilitating a community planning process to establish Land Uses and Design Guidelines for each
site. The process could be modeled on the process used for the Excelsior Blvd/France Avenue
redevelopment site and other community planning processes we have conducted in the past and
include these key elements:
a. A committee representing the School District, the neighborhoods, Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and would be formed to work
with city staff and possibly consultants. It is anticipated that a separate committee would
be established for each site with 7-9 members in each committee. The committees would
be a working group that would make recommendations to the School District and City
Council for consideration and endorsement.
b. In addition to the advisory committee meetings, meetings would be held open to the full
neighborhoods and anyone else interested at key steps in the planning process. The
purpose of these meetings would be to keep everyone informed and give them a chance
to ask questions and provide input to the committee.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 5
c. The goal of the process would be to establish reuse/development guidelines that address
School District, neighborhood, and citywide objectives. These guidelines would help
identify appropriate new uses for the sites. By doing so, new uses in substantial
conformance with the guidelines would move much more easily through the land use
approval process.
d. Key steps in the process would include identifying stakeholder concerns and objectives,
exploring concept plans and design guidelines for each site. Issues such as the types of
use, density of development, site design, transportation/access, building character,
buffering of surrounding land uses, etc. would be addressed.
e. Once the guidelines were established the City, in partnership with the School District,
would solicit development proposals for the sites.
f. The guidelines would be used to evaluate any development proposals for the sites.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of a community-based planning study and a funding source would need to be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: Site characteristic tables
Aerial maps
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 6
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Cedar Manor School
Cedar Manor Characteristics
Size of property 12.1 acres
Building age Originally built in 1957; added on to in 1993.
Building size 78,447 s.f.
Comprehensive Plan designation
Low Density Residential, 3-7 units/acres (primarily single family
residential)
Zoning R-1, Single Family Residential
Location This site is located at the intersection of Highway 169 and
Cedar Lake Road, and does not share access with any
surrounding properties.
Surrounding uses To the east there are single family homes, and to the south
across Cedar Lake Road there are also single family homes.
Highway 169 is directly west of the site; to the north are two
city owned properties totaling about 14 acres, over 9 of which
contains Cedar Manor Lake.
Parks in area On the school property is Cedar Manor Park, which is operated
and maintained by the City. Westwood Nature Center and
Willow Park are both approximately 1 mile away.
Open Space The City owns two parcels to the north of Cedar Manor school.
One is 9.3 acres primarily covered by Cedar Manor Lake and
the other is a 5.6 acres wooded parcel. The wooded site (5.6
acres) was a parcel reviewed in the Excess Land process. The
City Council determined that a neighborhood planning process
be initiated to determine the future use of the property. It was
recognized that the lack of access restricts the building and park
use for this site.
The closing of Cedar Manor school potentially improves access
to this site. It would be appropriate to consider the future use of
the northerly wooded site in the planning for the school site.
Minneapolis Golf Club is approximately 1 mile to the north.
Neighborhood services Within 1 to 1 ½ miles are many services (grocery, restaurants,
drug stores) at Louisiana Avenue and Hopkins Crossroads.
Vehicle access The site is a visible site with excellent access to the Highway
169, giving it desirability for a number of uses.
Pedestrian and bike access Sidewalk exists along the north side of Cedar Lake Road; Cedar
Lake Road has a designated bike lane on it.
Market/assessed/appraised The School District estimated the land value at $6,320,000 and
the land and building value at $4,668,000.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 7
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Eliot School
Eliot School Characteristics
Size 4.3 acres
Building age The original portion of Eliot School was built in 1926, with
the majority of it (85%) built in 1952.
Building size 74,222 s.f.
Comprehensive Plan designation Low Density Residential, 3-7 units/acres (primarily single
family residential)
Zoning R-2, Single Family Residential
Current use It has not been used as a traditional school since 1971.
Currently, nearly all of the building is occupied by 4
educational/academic users.
Location The site is located on Cedar Lake Road, between Hampshire
and Idaho Avenues
Surrounding uses Primarily single family residential; Lutheran church across
street.
Parks in area Jersey Park is 1 ½ - 2 blocks north. It is a neighborhood
park with basketball court, play structure, picnic tables, trail
and horseshoes. Hampshire Park is about 2 ½ blocks to
north east, and is an open space park.
Neighborhood services Many services at Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana including:
drug store, grocery store, dry cleaners. Regional commercial
at Park Place Boulevard.
Vehicle access Via Cedar Lake Road
Pedestrian and bike access Sidewalk exists along the north side of Cedar Lake Road;
Cedar Lake Road has a designated bike lane on it.
Market/assessed/appraised In 2008, the city had an appraisal prepared for the Eliot
School property and it showed the property to have a market
value of $2,100,000. The School District previously
estimated the land value at $2,232,000 and the land and
building value at $3,250,000.
Cedar Manor School
City of Minnetonka
Cedar Manor School
Parcel size...........................Building size.........................Comp. Plan Designation...........Zoning Designation.................
12.1 acres78,447 square feetRL, Low Density ResidentialR-1, Single Family Residential
Cedar Lake Road
Hwy169
City-Owned Land: 14.8 acres
Hannon Lake
Minneapolis Golf Club
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 8
Eliot School
Eliot School
Parcel size............................Building size.........................Comp. Plan Designation...........Zoning Designation.................
4.3 acres74,222 square feetRL, Low Density ResidentialR-2, Single Family ResidentialCedar Lake RoadHampshire Ave. S.Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 6)Page 9
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8
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:
Ellipse Public Art Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required by the City Council. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council
on the status of the construction and implementation of public art at the Ellipse development on the
corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the art proposed for this area?
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been working with Bader Development and their Landscape Architect, Damon Farber and
Associates, to create a public art sculpture in the plaza of the development. A process similar to what
has been used in the past was used to select the art at this area. A committee made up of the
developer, representatives from the Minikahda Vista and Minikahda Oaks neighborhoods (Paul
Livdahl and Sue Ainsworth), a representative from Friends of the Arts (George Hagemann), a
member of the Planning Commission (Robert Kramer), a Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission member (George Hagemann served this role also), along with planning and parks and
recreation staff interviewed four artists. Jack Becker from Forecast Public Artworks facilitated the
process and sent out the Request for Proposals (RFP) to artists included in his data base.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ART:
The selection panel chose Norman Andersen as the artist. Mr. Anderson is a Minneapolis based
artist who has worked on other sculptural projects within the Twin Cities area. He has created a
piece called Windtrace. Mr. Anderson has provided the following description of Windtrace.
“Windtrace focuses on the concept of the "ellipse" itself, which offers the perfection of the circle, but
the soul of something original and more comforting. The ellipse is beautiful in its proportional
curves, and with neither a starting nor end point. It symbolizes regeneration, cyclical activity, and
timelessness. The form is not overwhelming to the site, but has enough scale, color, and motion to
stand as an inviting gateway to the area and establish a special identity to the Ellipse on Excelsior.
Windtrace is a dynamic sculpture using the forces of nature to provide change and variability. This
dimension expresses the vitality of the newly developing identity of St. Louis Park. The sculpture
offers real motion; it catches the eye and stimulates the imagination – a unique kinetic object with
intriguing motions – inviting the curious to have a closer look and enjoy a new neighborhood
landmark. The artwork is wind-powered and is most always in motion.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Windtrace scribes elliptical patterns in a fine-grained medium filling its base. These patterns vary
widely depending on the wind speed, direction, and consistency generating a smooth and regular
back and forth motion as side forces yield the elliptical traces. In the evening, illumination is
provided by highly efficient LED’s built into the sculpture itself. In addition to its interaction with
weather, sun, shadow, and people, the sculpture is further integrated into its architectural and
landscape environment through the extension of the ellipse motif into the paving of the plaza
beneath it.
Windtrace offers a graceful open (implied) arch 15 feet tall, ground by a low tub-like cylinder at its
base measuring four feet in diameter. These forms are aluminum with a deep red durable finish.
Curved glass sheets four feet high are planned to encircle the base, creating a protective barrier. At
the top is an aluminum wind-wheel in the form of a pair of winged maple seeds; it is mounted with
ball bearings so that it rotates freely. The maple seed form at the top of Windtrace self-governs its
speed – rotating and swaying gracefully, but easily noticed and enjoyed by anyone passing by. The
sculpture will create an engaging and inviting outdoor gathering place.”
The piece is scheduled to be installed in late June or early July with the construction of the plaza of
the Ellipse development.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of developing and constructing the art pieces will be $50,000 and is paid for by the
developer.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The public art projects represent St. Louis Park’s commitment to promoting and integrating arts,
culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
Attachments: Design of the Windtrace
Rendering of the Windtrace in the plaza
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on Convention and Visitors Bureau Exploration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council regarding the
continued exploration of creating a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) in St. Louis Park as
directed by Council in September 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the direction staff is taking relative to
the exploration of the formation of a convention and visitors bureau for St. Louis Park which would
be funded through the creation of a lodging tax of 3% or less?
BACKGROUND:
On September 29, 2009 staff provided City Council with information regarding its investigation of
the viability of the creation of a CVB to further promote St. Louis Park within the Twin Cities
region and beyond which would be supported by implementing a lodging tax.
At that time the City Council directed staff to continue with their exploration, understanding that
St. Louis Park is a great place to experience all the Twin Cities have to offer – hotels, shopping,
restaurants, recreational and medical facilities, proximity to downtown Minneapolis and large office
complexes -- all of which would be of interest to travelers.
Since that time, staff, along with the President of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, have meet
with each hotelier in St. Louis Park informing them of the exploration of a CVB and discussed with
them the benefits and concerns they may have with forming a CVB in St. Louis Park. Staff also held
focus groups with additional partners in the community which included businesses, school district
and recreation groups to solicit their feedback and also discussed the concept with the St. Louis Park
Business Council. Based on the tone of the feedback received during these meetings staff felt it
appropriate to continue with the exploration.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has developed a concept plan document for a convention and visitors bureau for St. Louis Park
which is attached. This draft document is intended to lay our more clearly why consideration
should be given to creating a CVB and details as to the potential mission, focus and budget of a
CVB in St. Louis Park. Within the next month staff, along with the TwinWest Chamber of
Commerce President, will be taking this draft document back to the hoteliers for another discussion.
In late May or June staff then proposes to return to the City Council to provide an update and
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 2
request direction as to whether staff should to take the next steps in forming a CVB. The attached
document will also be shared with the St. Louis Park Business Council, TwinWest Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors and other partners as deemed appropriate.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None immediately, but over time the potential exists for increased tax base and indirect financial
benefits. A convention and visitors bureau could undertake promotional efforts for which there
might not otherwise be any funding available.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: September 29, 2010 City Council Staff Report
Draft Convention and Visitors Bureau Concept Plan
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 3
Meeting Date: September 29, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Convention and Visitors Bureau.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests direction from the City Council as to whether to proceed with the exploration of
forming a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) in St. Louis Park. To assist with the discussion and
answer questions, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce President Bruce Nustad, City Attorney Tom
Scott and a representative of a local CVB will be in attendance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to direct staff to explore the viability of a Convention and Visitors
Bureau for St. Louis Park and the creation of a lodging tax, as allowed by law, to support that entity?
BACKGROUND:
The community visioning processes undertaken in 1995 and 2006 have been major catalysts for
change that have resulted in community transforming projects and initiatives being undertaken.
Examples are almost too numerous to count and include such things as Excelsior and Grand, the
West End and other major economic development/redevelopment projects, as will as initiatives such
as Children First, arts and culture activities, marketing and branding, and programs to insure the
public and privately owned infrastructure needs in our community are addressed. A common thread
that has run through all of these initiatives is the idea of insuring that St. Louis Park is viewed as a
desirable place to live, raise a family and do business and, as a result, compete well in the market
place of other communities in the metro area. This in turn helps insure that St. Louis Park is very
viable economically and is a good place to invest or reinvest. As another means to grow the economic
vitality of the community and all that it has to offer, staff has been investigating the possibly of
creating a CVB to further promote St. Louis Park within the Twin Cities region and beyond. A
CVB would be supported by implementing a lodging tax as allowed by state law.
As noted above, there is no doubt that St. Louis Park is a great place to experience all the Twin
Cities have to offer – shopping, community festivals, regional trails, restaurants, recreational and
medical facilities, proximity to downtown Minneapolis and the airport, large office complexes and
employers, and excellent transit options (including the upcoming SWLRT project) -- all of which
would be of interest to travelers or visitors. The creation of a CVB would allow St. Louis Park to
more actively and intentionally promote the community to travelers and visitors, along with
prospective businesses and residents, for leisure, business or convention purposes.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 4
Minnesota Statute Section 469.190 (attached) allows a city to “impose a tax of up to three percent
on the gross receipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, rooming
house, tourist court, or resort, other than the renting of leasing of it for a continuous period of 30
days or more”. Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed must be used to
fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or
town as a tourist or convention center.
With 843 beds currently available in the City and over 1,100 projected in the near future, the
estimated revenue which could be generated is estimated at approximately $800,000 annually (see
attached Estimated Lodging Tax Revenue).
If City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation to continue exploration into the formation of a
CVB, staff would propose that it involve collaboration with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
for partnership and/or support during the exploration process.
Several communities in the Twin Cities metro area have developed successful convention and
visitors bureaus; some with a focus on their community, others promoting the business and
convention industry. A listing of those communities with convention and visitor bureaus is
attached.
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council directs staff to explore the viability of a Convention and Visitors Bureau for St.
Louis Park, an important next step would be to specifically identify the mission or role of a
Convention and Visitors Bureau for St. Louis Park and the direction on how the revenues generated
would be utilized. In addition, of utmost importance is communication and partnership with the
City’s lodging establishments. If City Council directs staff to pursue this exploration,
communication to our lodging establishments would need to be done in a timely manner.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None immediately, but over time the potential exists for increased tax base and indirect financial
benefits. A convention and visitors bureau could undertake promotional efforts for which there
might not otherwise be any funding available.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. This was a significant
part of the 1995 Vision Process through the community connections vision area and was reaffirmed
even more strongly in 2006.
Attachments: Minnesota Statutes Section 469.190
Estimated Lodging Tax Revenue
Listing of Metro Convention and Visitor Bureaus
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 5
DRAFT CONCEPT PLAN
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 6
St. Louis Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Concept
Background
In 2009, the St. Louis Park City Council asked City staff to explore the viability of a convention and
visitors bureau for St. Louis Park given the increasing number of hotel rooms and other amenities
within the city.
The City partnered with the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce as it began this process, met with
each St Louis Park hotelier, and held focus groups with other community partners, including
business, recreation, and educational institutions.
While each stakeholder group had its own observations and questions, several things became clear:
• St. Louis Park has unrealized market potential for increasing its annual number of business and
leisure travels;
• 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 services that a
convention and visitors bureau could provide;
• St. Louis Park could likely financially support a convention and visitors bureau; and
• St. Louis Park is a destination that should be marketed for all it has to offer.
Although the City began introducing coordinated marketing efforts 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 business, which should be the role of a convention and visitors bureau.
What makes St. Louis Park a Destination?
Location
St. Louis Park offers a safe, accessible, central location within the inner ring of the Twin Cities.
Located immediately west of Minneapolis, the City is less than five miles from downtown
Minneapolis and 15 miles from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). From St. Louis
Park, the travelling public can enjoy direct access to I-394, US169, SH7, SH100 as well as close
proximity to SH62. Within the next few years, getting to and from St. Louis Park will be even more
convenient when the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) opens three stations in the
community.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 7
Amenities
As a result of its pivotal location, St. Louis Park is a convenient place to hold a meeting and has one
of the top offerings of hotel rooms in the metro area. St. Louis Park augments these offerings with a
growing and unique mix of:
• shopping venues
• restaurants
• state-of-the-art movie theater complex
• recreational facilities
• community festivals and events
• outdoor public art
• sports facilities and tournaments
• regional trails
• renowned medical facilities
• large office complexes and large area employers
• private golf clubs
Why should St. Louis Park create a Convention & Visitors Bureau?
In addition to the above, when factoring in proximity to downtown Minneapolis (with its major
league sports facilities and world prominent theaters and museums) as well as other nearby shopping
areas (including the Mall of America), it’s understandable why St. Louis Park is increasingly being
seen as a desirable hub for overnight stays.
However, St. Louis Park and its partners lack a means for making the travelling public fully aware of
all that it has to offer. Currently there is no one organization charged with marketing the
community and packaging its venues and amenities. Such activities do not directly coincide with the
mission of the City of St. Louis Park or that of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Convention
and visitors bureaus in nearby cities are unlikely to promote St. Louis Park as a destination beyond
its “overflow facilities.” Area businesses in general, and Park Nicollet Health Services in particular,
have indicated that it could utilize the services of a local convention and visitors bureau for directing
their guests as to places to stay, eat, shop, and recreate while in town. Local meeting, event, and
sports tournament organizers have likewise expressed a need for visitor services, event planning and
promotion.
If a convention and visitors bureau were formed in St. Louis Park it could fill the above needs, drive
additional travelers and visitors to St. Louis Park, as well as generate additional economic activity
within the city.
What would be the purpose of a Convention & Visitors Bureau?
The creation of a convention and visitors bureau would allow St. Louis Park to realize its market
potential for attracting travelers, meetings and events. A convention and visitors bureau could
specialize in developing conventions, meetings, conferences, community events and visitations to St.
Louis Park.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 8
A convention and visitors bureau would be charged with marketing St. Louis Park locally, regionally
and nationally as a top leisure and business destination in the region and to provide outstanding
customer service to travelers, area facilities and employers, as well as community organizations.
Why not partner with other local bureaus?
St. Louis Park is in a competitive marketplace with the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and
Bloomington each offering a tourism bureau. If created, a convention and visitors bureau for St.
Louis Park would need to develop strong partnerships with not only the aforementioned tourism
bureaus, but also other local and regional tourism bureaus (Eagan, Minneapolis North, Burnsville,
etc.) in the area. St. Louis Park provides one of the larger offerings of hotel rooms in the metro area
and the community is ripe for promoting itself as a great destination hub in the region.
How would a Convention & Visitors Bureau be funded?
Minn. Stat. §469.190, Subd. 1 authorizes the City Council 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.
General Use of Tax Proceeds Collected
Minn. Stat. §469.190, Subd. 3 requires that ninety-five percent (95%) of the tax proceeds collected
be used to fund a tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the community as a
tourist or convention center. The remaining five percent (5%) would be retained by the City.
Grants and Other Funds
A convention and visitors bureau could also explore grant and other revenue opportunities to
maximize the proceeds collected from lodging taxes.
Expenditures
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.
How could a Convention & Visitors Bureau be managed?
A convention and visitors bureau would likely have a small staff, headed by an executive director,
dedicated to running day-to-day operations. A board of directors would be appointed which may
consist of representatives from the City of St. Louis Park, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, hotels,
retailers, schools and other businesses who would set policy, approve annual budgets and hire staff.
Who stands to benefit from a Convention & Visitors Bureau?
A convention and visitors bureau could market on behalf of a wide variety of St. Louis Park
businesses which serve the traveling public. These may include lodging providers, restaurants, local
attractions and festivals, parks, museums, services, retail stores, golf courses, area employers and
community organizations.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 9
Would the Convention and Visitors Bureau have a marketing strategy?
A convention and visitors bureau, in cooperation and consultation with its community partners,
could focus on:
• promoting St. Louis Park as a leading leisure tourism destination;
• developing St. Louis Park as a meetings and conventions destination;
• stimulating economic growth in the community in collaboration with the EDA;
• marketing and communicating all the amenities the community offers; and
• providing exceptional customer service.
Leisure Tourism
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 hub” will require innovative marketing efforts, such as direct advertising and
marketing and dovetailing on the recent success and media coverage on the Shops at West End and
Excelsior & Grand. Consideration should also be given to leveraging partnerships to boost regional
marketing efforts with travel packaging – e.g., hotel stay, dinner and transportation to and/from a
Twins Game, as one example.
Meetings and Conventions
St. Louis Park has many facilities within the community that can service the meeting and small
convention markets, and a convention and visitors bureau could develop this untapped market and
recruit groups to the community. Primary target market segments are 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 a complement location for larger national conventions, such as was the case when the
Republican National Convention was here in the region.
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
compliment these efforts to recruit businesses that are compatible and complimentary with 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 internet and social media presence, as well as traditional print and broadcast
media.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 10
Customer Service
A convention and visitors bureau would ensure that visitors enjoy St. Louis Park to the fullest extent
possible to stimulate return visits. It would focus on developing relationships with local, regional
and national meeting planners, including our large sports and recreation segment, 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
outstanding levels of personal assistance to all who utilize their services, from the large corporate
meeting planner to the individual tourist.
See Attachment, “CVB Focus Areas” for possible goals for each marketing focus area.
What is the projected timeline for creating a Convention and Visitors
Bureau and what does the projected budget look like?
Projected Timeline
May/June 2010 Receive direction from City Council on CVB formation
July/August 2010 Prepare governance documents for presentation to City
Council and others
September/October 2010 Adopt ordinance authorizing up to a 3% lodging tax
October/November 2010 Begin collecting lodging tax
November/December 2010 Determine final Board Makeup/Selection
Undertake office space needs assessment
January/March 2011 Determine final staffing needs
Hire Staff
April/May 2011 Marketing Development
June 1, 2011 Open for Business
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 11
Preliminary Projected Budget
Revenue
Approx. Available Lodging Tax $566,000
Expenses
Staffing $250,000
(Executive Director, Sales and Marketing, Support)
Equipment/Misc $100,000
Space $ 50,000
Marketing $100,000
Special Fund $ 50,000 (consideration for transportation, promotions, etc.)
$550,000
Why is now the right time to create a Convention & Visitors Bureau?
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 put together goals, action steps, timelines and suggestions for
additional partnerships. The teams also developed a one-page statement on what St. Louis Park will
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 connecting 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 that 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
the services that a convention and visitors bureau would provide, and the sooner such an entity is
organized and operating, the sooner they all would benefit.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 12
Potential CVB Focus Areas
Leisure Tourism
A convention and visitors bureau could promote St. Louis Park as a leisure destination to the local,
regional, state and national travel markets by developing and implementing programs designed to
generate room nights; increase visitation to attractions; promote community offerings, such as
festivals and sporting events, and to impact retail establishments and restaurants.
Goal/Initiative – Increase Room Nights. A convention and visitors bureau could work to increase
room night stays, visits and business by leisure travelers from the local, regional, state and national
markets.
Goal/Initiative - Maximize Vehicle Visitor Market. An initiative of a convention and visitors
bureau could be to work with AAA Minneapolis and others to promote St. Louis Park as a leisure
destination to its local, regional, state and national branches to capture and maximize the vehicle
visitor market. A convention and visitors bureau could also work with local, regional and state tour
bus operators to provide same.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Local Support and Education. A convention and visitors bureau could
work to educate the local community about St. Louis Park as a highly desirable leisure travel
destination, which would include working with our local festival and sporting event organizers. This
could then be branched out to regional, state and national markets.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Customer Promotions. A convention and visitors bureau could
develop innovative promotions to increase awareness of and travel to St. Louis Park as a leading
leisure travel destination, which may involve travel discounts or incentives.
Meetings, Conventions and Events
If a goal of a convention and visitors bureau is to develop the community as a meeting, convention
and event destination, examples of some goals are:
Goal/Initiative – Promotion of Brand Presence to Market Segments. Allocate appropriate
proportion of personnel to market St. Louis Park as a meeting and convention destination. This
could include sales trips, tradeshows, site visits and familiarization tours.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Promotional Budget. Allocate funds to promote brand presence to
appropriate market segments to market St. Louis Park as a meetings and conventions destination. In
addition to advertising, this may include a transportation reserve fund or other resource pool that
could provide a competitive advantage to a convention and visitors bureau.
Goal/Initiative – Training. Develop and utilize training to increase effectiveness of personnel
devoted to promoting St. Louis Park as a meeting and convention destination.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 13
Goal/Initiative – Develop Multi-Cultural Market. St. Louis Park is a diverse community and a
convention and visitors bureau could look at ways to maximize this advantage and leverage St. Louis
Park’s reputation for diversity and unique characteristics to attract these groups (i.e., Jewish, Seniors,
Women, Asian and Hispanic, etc.).
Goal/Initiative – Develop Sports Market. Continue to further develop St. Louis Park as a
destination for local, regional, state and national amateur sports teams.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Medical Market. Continue to further develop St. Louis Park as a
destination for renowned medical services – cancer center, eating disorder clinic, vascular center,
working collaboratively with our partners in the medical industry.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Event Market. Explore the expansion or creation of community events
that would attract visitors from the region, state or even nationally that could further enhance the
community’s profile (i.e., community festivals, art fairs, concert series, etc.)
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 and working
to retain its base of existing businesses, the convention and visitors bureau could also compliment
these efforts to recruiting businesses that are compatible and complimentary.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Partnership with Economic Development Authority (EDA).
Develop a strong partnership with the EDA to assist in accomplishing its goals which in turn
benefits a convention and visitors bureau by allowing it to promote St. Louis Park as a viable and
attractive community in which to visit and do business.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Joint Marketing Goals. The EDA and convention and visitors bureau
could work collaboratively on joint marketing initiatives to encourage and promote all aspects of
what St. Louis Park has to offer.
Goal/Initiative – Maximize Resources. Many of the goals and desired outcomes of a convention
and visitors bureau and the EDA will be the same – promoting St. Louis Park as a desired location
where people can live, work, visit and play. These two entities could work collaboratively together
(i.e., business retention, new job creation, etc.) to identify these common goals and find ways to
maximize the collective resources.
Marketing and Communications
A convention and visitors bureau should strive to increase awareness in the media and the public that
St. Louis Park is a meeting, convention and leisure destination. This could be accomplished with
effective public relations and advertising and marketing campaigns that promote St. Louis Park
through advertising, promotions, publications, website, research and public and media relations.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No.9) Page 14
Goal/Initiative – Develop Media and Public Relations. Develop proactive media and public
relations through press releases to local, regional, state and national media and others.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Advertising Campaigns. Develop creative concepts that promote St.
Louis Park as an outstanding destination for meetings and conventions, group and trade shows, and
the business, sporting, medical and leisure tourism markets.
Goal/Initiative – Develop Promotional Materials – Develop promotional materials to support the
efforts of promoting St. Louis Park as a top destination for meetings and conventions, group and
trade shows, and the business, sporting, medical and leisure tourism markets.
Goal/Initiative – Implement E-Marketing Plan. Create and implement a comprehensive E-
Marketing Plan to reach that large number of the travel market that utilizes the internet to plan
trips. This will include development and implementation of a website and web-based marketing for
the convention and visitors bureau.
Goal/Initiative – Training and Education. A convention and visitors bureau should encourage
ongoing training, education and site visits for staff and volunteers to enhance first-hand knowledge
of the attractions and amenities in St. Louis Park and the surrounding area to result in the highest
level of customer service possible.
Visitors Center/Office
The main purpose of a convention and visitors bureau in St. Louis Park is to promote the
community as a year-round destination to identified market segments and to provide superior
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 materials
to visitors in order to facilitate longer overnight stays and encourage return visits.
Goal/Initiative –Store-front Presence – A convention and visitors bureau may wish to consider a
storefront presence in a highly visible location within the community.
A few reasons why a store front is important are:
o Customer Service
o Convenience
o Credibility
o Visibility
Goal/Initiative – Awareness of Visitors Center. A convention and visitors bureau would be
charged with creating an awareness of the benefits of maintaining a visitors center to the local,
regional, state and national markets and the service offerings it can provide.
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 10
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:
Fire Stations Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is needed at this time. This report is intended to serve as an update on the status of
planning for the replacement of the City’s two fire stations. Approvals of a contract for architectural
and engineering services will be on a future agenda.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
No policy considerations at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or concerns that you
might have.
BACKGROUND:
Since hiring Kraus-Anderson as the construction manager for the fire stations project, staff prepared
and issued a request for proposals (RFP) for architectural and engineering services for both fire
stations.
The City received 12 responses to the RFP on March 4, 2010. A staff Selection Subcommittee
reviewed the proposals and selected five firms to interview on March 31, 2010. The Selection
Subcommittee included: Fire Chief Luke Stemmer, Assistant Fire Chief Mark Windschitl, Parks and
Recreation Director Cindy Walsh, Parks Superintendent Rick Beane, Inspections Director Brian
Hoffman, Building Codes Inspector Jim Dube, Community Development Director Kevin Locke,
and Senior Planner Sean Walther. Kraus-Anderson Construction Manager Pat Sims and
Preconstruction Manager Brian Hook assisted in preparing the RFP, review of proposals, and
interviews.
In advance of the interviews, several staff toured fire stations that were recently built by the finalist
firms. The firms interviewed included Short Elliot Hendrickson, Hagen Christian McIlwain
Architects, Collaborative Design Group, KKE Architects and Tushie Montgomery Architects.
Following the first round of interviews, staff invited the two leading candidates back for second
interviews on April 6, 2010.
Next Steps:
• The Selection Subcommittee will share its final recommendation with the Director’s
Oversight Group and Working Group on Tuesday, April 13, 2010.
• Staff will begin contract negotiations with the leading Architectural-Engineering candidate.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2
• An update on staff’s recommendation and some background on the recommended firm will
be forwarded to City Council on April 26.
• Staff will present a contract for City Council consideration on the May 3 agenda.
• Staff is reviewing proposals for environmental and geotechnical consulting services, too.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The financial and budget impacts will be explained and considered at an upcoming regular meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Urban Reforestation Policy Amendment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report has been prepared to inform the Council of staff’s intent
of bringing a policy amendment to the Council on April 19 relating to the City’s Urban
Reforestation Policy and the use of the Land Sale proceeds for the treatment of Dutch Elm Disease
(DED). This action is being initiated based on the Councils direction at its March 22 Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the Urban Reforestation Policy to allow for the injection of
Elm trees for Dutch Elm Disease as an eligible use of the Land Sale Proceeds?
BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 2009, the City Council adopted an Urban Reforestation Program and Policy. The
purpose of adopting the policy was to identify and direct how the excess land sale proceeds should be
used. The intent of the Urban Reforestation Program and Policy was to supplement funds for tree
planting on public property. The desire was to use the money obtained from the land sale proceeds
for something that had a lasting impact on the community.
In 2010 $25,000 will be used from the land sale fund for tree planting and supplement the $60,000
already in the City’s 2010 budget. This money will allow for the planting of 100 additional trees.
For this plan, “tree planting” would equal purchasing tree stock, wood mulch, and contracting for
tree planting services. This would qualify only if the actions are involved with planting and
establishing new trees.
At the March 22, 2010 City Council Study Session, Council expressed an interest in changing the
current policy to allow the treatment of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) to be an allowable expense under
the Urban Reforestation Policy. The money used to pay for the injections would come from the
Land Sale Proceeds. The DED injection program was cut from the 2010 operating budget.
PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE
Based on feedback from the City Council, the Urban Reforestation Policy is proposed to be
amended to reflect that the treatment of Elm trees for DED will be an eligible activity under the
policy. The policy further reflects that the Council will annually establish a budget for this activity.
The proposed policy changes are attached and are noted in red and underlined. For 2010 staff is
proposing that the City pay for 15% of the cost for the treatment of DED on public and private
property with a total budget not to exceed $20,000. These are the same budget parameters and
approach used in 2009.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 2
PUBLIC EDUCATION:
With this change in policy, residents will be notified that Council has authorized the expenditure of
up to $20,000 in 2010 to pay 15% of the cost of injecting trees as a prevention of DED. The cost of
this will be funded through the land sale proceeds rather than through the general fund. In the past,
the city has solicited bids for one contractor to administer the DED injections. Because the bidding
process can take six weeks, staff recommends that for 2010 the City allow residents to use any tree
contractor who is licensed by the city to provide injections. When a resident chooses a licensed tree
contractor to provide the injection, the resident will be asked to pay the bill and send the city the
invoice. The city will then reimburse the resident 15% of the cost of the injection. The cost to inject
may vary slightly by contractor and is not expected to be significant. The process will be explained in
a letter that will be sent to residents who have participated in this program in the past. This
information will also be posted on the City’s web site and thru other means.
Staff will continue to emphasize the importance of trees, tree planting and the benefits of trees.
Information will be provided to residents when boulevard trees are planted, stressing the importance
of the property owner taking care of the tree by watering them.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The accumulated proceeds from the lands sales thus far is approximately $500,000. The Council has
authorized spending $25,000 from the Land Sale Proceeds to plant additional trees in 2010 under
the Urban Reforestation Policy. This policy change will allow an additional amount, not to exceed
$20,000, for the prevention of Dutch Elm Diseases through injections in 2010.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed Urban Reforestation Policy is in alignment with the City Council’s adopted Strategic
Direction relating to environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Urban Reforestation Program Policy with proposed changes
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 3
St. Louis Park
Urban Reforestation Program Policy
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the Urban Reforestation Policy is to provide a healthy and diverse tree population
and support the City’s vision regarding environmental stewardship.
DEFINITION:
Urban Reforestation is the continuation of planting and maintaining trees in our city.
USE OF FUNDS:
The goal of the City’s Urban Reforestation Program is to provide a healthy and diverse tree
population and support the City’s Vision regarding environmental stewardship. The funds will be
used as follows:
a) To plant trees along boulevards, at the Nature Center and in parks to replace trees which
have been removed and not replaced due to past budget constraints.
b) To provide a one-for-one tree replacement which means that a tree is planted to replace
every public tree that is lost (if feasible and possible).
c) To fill the empty places along boulevards where trees had not been planted in the past.
d) To maximize diversity of our urban forest by planting no more than 15% of one tree species.
The greater the diversity of tree species, sizes and conditions, the healthier the community
forest. This will also prevent future large-scale losses in trees due to infestation of pests.
Species are typically rotated as much as possible per block trying to mix species so the same
species are not adjacent to one another.
e) To plant native trees where possible. This minimizes the detrimental effects of exotic species.
f) To optimize natural aesthetic and wild life habitat.
g) Primarily used for boulevard trees although trees in parks and public areas would qualify.
h) Replace trees lost due to imminent diseases such as Emerald Ash Borer.
i) To pay for the injection of Elm trees for the prevention of Dutch Elm Disease on public and
private property.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The money currently obtained from land sale proceeds and the money that is yet to come in as
future sites are sold, will be put in a reforestation fund. This fund will be located within the Park
Improvement Fund and will accrue interest on the amount not yet spent.
a) As trees are removed from boulevards, parks or other City owned properties, the City
Manager, or designee, may approve expending funds from this account for the purchase and
planting of new trees within the parameters of the budget set by the City Council.
b) If new programs aimed at providing funds for trees arise, the money from those programs
will be put into this fund with the same guidelines attached.
c) The use of these funds will supplement and not replace funds previously budgeted for tree
planting on public property
A reforestation and DED injection plan and budget will be established each year and approved by
the City Council through the annual budget approval process.
Meeting Date: April 12, 2010
Agenda Item #: 12
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Relocation of Polling Location for Ward 4, Precinct 17.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is recommended at this time. This report is intended to provide background for the City
Council regarding a new polling place location for St. Louis Park voters in Precinct 17 Eliot
Community Center. Approval by resolution establishing the proposed polling place relocation is
scheduled for the April 19, 2010 City Council Meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to proceed with the relocation of Precinct 17 to Peace Presbyterian Church,
7624 Cedar Lake Road?
BACKGROUND:
Eliot Community Center located at 6800 Cedar Lake has been a polling place location for many
years for Precinct 17. The School Board for St. Louis Park Public Schools at their regular meeting
on Monday, February 22, 2010, voted unanimously to close Eliot Community Center at the end of
the 2009-10 school year.
With Primary Elections now being held in August, all polling location changes must be reported to
Hennepin County by May 12 in order for affected voters to receive timely notification from the
County of any polling location changes.
Staff has researched alternative locations based on the attached criteria established by Resolution No.
02-041 and statutory requirements. The following polling location has been evaluated and
recommended for relocation of Precinct 17:
Precinct 17 - Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Peace Presbyterian Church is located just a few blocks west of the Eliot Community Center and just
a few blocks west of the Precinct 17 boundary line. The entrance is located on the north side of the
building along with a large parking lot. Peace Presbyterian Church is currently used for Precinct 15
and will be large enough to accommodate two precincts. The Church has two separate rooms
adjacent to each other that can be used for the two separate precincts. Peace Presbyterian Church
meets ADA accessibility requirement. Rev. Dan Martin has graciously offered the use of Peace
Presbyterian Church to accommodate the additional voters of Precinct 17.
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Utilizing Peace Presbyterian Church for two polling locations will be temporary until the 2011
Redistricting occurs from the 2010 Census results which may affect precinct boundaries. Other
polling locations that accommodate two precincts in the same building are Peter Hobart Primary
Center (Precincts 2 and 3) and City Hall (Precincts 5 and 6). Experienced election judges have done
an excellent job at these precincts making certain that voters are voting in the correct precinct and
assisting with keeping St. Louis Park elections running smoothly.
VOTER NOTIFICATION:
All registered voters in Precinct 17 Ward Four will be notified of the change by a post card mailed
from Hennepin County, (paid for by the City) at least 25 days before the next election. This year’s
Primary Election will be August 10, 2010 and the General Election is November 2, 2010.
Information regarding the new polling location for Precincts 17 will also be published in the Park
Perspective, City Website, and Sun Sailor newspaper.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Statutory/City Requirements Regarding Polling Places
Map of Precinct 17 polling place location
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 12) Page 3
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POLLING PLACES
MN Statute Section 204B.16 regarding polling places and their designation requires:
• Designation by resolution of the City Council
• Location within the boundaries of a precinct or within one mile of the boundary
• Accessibility to the handicapped
• Sufficient size to accommodate all election activities, and
• Separate from other activities within the building
The Statutes also seek to ensure that polling places are made available for elections by stating:
• Every city, county, school district and other PUBLIC agencies must make their
facilities including parking available for holding elections.
• Polling place changes must be made at least 90 days prior to an election
(next election August 10, 2010)
• Notices must be mailed directly to each registered voter in the precinct.
CITY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POLLING PLACES
Resolution No. 02-041 adopted April 15, 2002 establishes the following criteria in evaluating
polling locations:
• Polling places will be designated based on the ability of the poll to accommodate
voters in terms of handicapped access, parking, space within the building. Larger
numbers of voters will be assigned to those buildings able to accommodate larger
numbers of voters.
• Whenever possible, public buildings not affiliated with religious organizations should
be utilized and are preferable to churches, synagogues, schools and community
centers associated with religious organizations;
29TH ST W
28TH ST W
27TH ST W
WAYZATA BLVD
LOUISIANA AVE SCEDAR LAKE RDJERSEY AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SALABAMA AVE SGEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE S16TH ST W
23RD ST WTEXAS
A
V
E SELIOT VIEW RDCOLORADO AVE SNEVADA AVE SIDAHO AVE S24TH ST W
22ND ST W 18TH ST WDAKOTA AVE SQ
U
E
B
E
C
A
V
E
S
14TH ST W
CEDAR LAK E R D S
FRANK L IN A VE W
SUMTER AVE SKENTUCKY L
N
MARYLAND AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S13TH LN W
13 1/2 ST W
OREGON AVE S26TH ST W
RHOD
E
I
SLAND AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SQUEB
E
C DR
25TH ST W
LOUISIANA C
T
SPENNSYLVANIA AVE S
QUEBEC AVE SFLORIDA AVE SALABAMA AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SOREGON AVE SQ U E BEC AVE SMARYLAND AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE S27TH ST W
JERSEY AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SKENTUCKY AVE S16TH ST W
EDGEWOOD AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE S22ND ST W NEVADA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE S18TH ST W
16TH ST W
COLORADO AVE SDAKOTA AVE SSUMTER AVE S26TH ST W
14TH ST W
23RD ST W
RHODE ISLA N D A V E S
NEVADA AVE SIDAHO AVE S18TH ST W
GEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SFRANKLIN AVE WOREGON AVE SIDAHO AVE S24TH ST W
SUMTER AVE S22ND ST W DAKOTA AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S16TH ST W
13TH LN W
BRUNSWICK AVE S394394
Eliot Community Center
Precinct 17
Peace Presbyterian Church
Meeting of April 12, 2010 (Item No. 12)Page 4