HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 8, 2010
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 15 and November 22, 2010
2. 6:35 p.m. Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
3. 7:15 p.m. Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
4. 8:00 p.m. Process for Community Input on Environment
5. 8:30 p.m. Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
6. 9:00 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
9:05 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
7. 2011 City-wide Property Maintenance Evaluation of One and Two Single Family Detached
Properties
8. Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
9. Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
10. Update on Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting
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 Date: November 8, 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 – November 15 and November 22, 2010.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session on November 15 and
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 22, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas 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 a Special Study Session scheduled for November 15 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on
November 22, 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for November 15 and November 22, 2010
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Special Study Session, Monday, November 15, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Fire Stations Update – Community Development (50 minutes)
Kraus Anderson Construction and DLR Group KKE will present updated designs, cost
estimates, and construction schedule. Policy discussion will include geothermal, LEED
certification, and direction to proceed with construction drawings.
Continued Special Study Session, Monday, November 15, 2010 – Immediately Following
City Council Meeting
2. Utility Rate Study – Finance (60 minutes)
Discussion on all Utility Rates.
End of Meeting: TBD
Study Session, Monday, November 22, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2011 City Budget / Utility Rates – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Staff will further discuss with Council the 2011 Budget for the General Fund, Park &
Recreation Fund, other relevant funds and Utility Rates.
3. CAP Application – Bikemasters Building – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discussion regarding Curt Rahman’s plans to renovate the former Bikemasters property
(3540 – 3550 Dakota Ave.) and his application for approximately $70,000 in assistance from
the CAP program
4. Eliot School Design Guidelines – Community Development (45minutes)
Staff and consultants will provide an overview and summary of the draft Design Guidelines
for the Eliot School site. The guidelines have been reviewed with the overall neighborhood;
the next step is to review them with the City Council and School Board and finalize them.
It is expected that the guidelines will be incorporated into the Plan by Neighborhood section
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
5. Park Nicollet Redevelopment Contract – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discussion regarding a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Park
Nicollet addressing the clinic’s outstanding obligations under the agreement.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-in – 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.
End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m.
Meeting Date: November 8, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback on Hardcoat’s proposed plans for the former Flame Metals property and
related CAP application.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support Hardcoat’s application for up to $420,000 in financial assistance thru the
CAP and the potential creation of an Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with the
project?
BACKGROUND:
A staff report introducing Hardcoat’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) application was provided
for the October 25th Study Session. That report is attached. This report addresses Hardcoat’s recently
refined project estimates and its specific funding request through the CAP.
The Proposed Project:
Hardcoat Inc, (located at 7300 W. Lake Street) wishes to acquire the former Flame Metals property
located across the street to the south at 7317 W. Lake Street. The company plans to renovate the building
and site, and relocate its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square
feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies.
Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned,
repainted, and many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly all the building’s
operating systems have been removed.
The proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as
well as a small addition. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock
doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC
equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well as the construction of
a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space on the north side of the building. Once the renovation is
complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of the building. The balance
will be leased to a complementary business and provide Hardcoat with future expansion capacity.
Job Creation
Hardcoat currently has 14 employees and all will be retained in the relocation to the new building.
As a result of its expanded operations and the new business it anticipates generating, Hardcoat
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
believes an additional 6 to 25 employees could potentially be hired in the next 5 years. Additional
labor would be involved with the building renovation and small addition. Other jobs would also be
created when a tenant leases the balance of the building.
Project Schedule
Hardcoat Inc. hopes to acquire the building early next year. It would begin interior building
renovations shortly thereafter. The entire project would likely be completed sometime during the
summer of 2011.
Request for Financial Assistance
Hardcoat has negotiated a Purchase Agreement with A & D Holdings LLC, (the current owner of
the property) for $1,050,000. The purchase price is $134,700 less than the property’s current
assessed value.
The total cost to renovate the building and grounds has recently been reexamined and is now
estimated at $1.4 million. Of this amount, Hardcoat has applied for up to $420,000 in
Construction Assistance: which equals approximately 33% of total renovation costs. This is the
maximum percentage for which businesses may apply under the CAP. This amount could be
reduced based upon more refinements to Hardcoat’s cost estimates and whatever cost savings the
company receives through Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program to which it recently
applied. As per the CAP Policy, the above is exclusive of soft costs, permits, furnishings, the cost to
physically relocate the business, the cost to reinstall existing equipment or the cost of new
equipment. When one adds the cost of the property ($1,050,000), the hard costs related to the
building renovation ($1,400,000), the cost of new equipment ($500,000), as well as soft costs and
permits estimated at ($136,500), the entire project will total nearly $3.1 million.
Hardcoat plans to finance approximately 85% of its total project costs between a bank loan and the
SBA. One note would be for the building and a second note would be for the equipment. Since the
$420,000 in CAP funds would be a forgivable loan from the EDA and subordinate to the bank and
SBA notes, it qualifies as Hardcoat’s equity contribution for the building loan.
Hardcoat has loan applications pending with two banks. To date those applications have cleared
both banks’ loan committees and are awaiting final review. Mr. Kelner anticipates hearing whether
his applications have been approved very soon.
Proforma Analysis
As expressed in the CAP Policy, the amount of financial assistance is based upon demonstrated
need. A business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the
requested assistance is warranted and necessary and without such assistance the project would
be unable to proceed. To that end staff requested Ehlers & Associates to review the Hardcoat’s
project costs and business proforma to determine how much assistance was warranted by the
proposed project. Ehlers analyzed the project in comparison with general industry standards for land
price, construction costs, return on equity/profit, various fees, etc. Based on its review, Ehlers
believes Hardcoat’s cost and revenue assumptions are reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore it is
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
clear that Hardcoat would be unable to undertake the proposed project without the EDA’s
financial assistance.
Structure of CAP Funds
Should the EDA wish to financially support the proposed project, funds would be provided to
Hardcoat on a reimbursement basis upon prove-up that qualified construction costs were incurred.
The reimbursement would be structured as a forgivable loan through a mortgage. Provided the
building is held and properly maintained by Hardcoat for 5 years after project completion, the
entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project
completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest from
the date funding was provided.
Proposed Funding Sources
The source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by nine of the City’s TIF districts. These
funds would be disbursed from the Development Fund. Given the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request,
creation of an Economic Development TIF District is proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP
funding. The proposed financial assistance would meet the requirements necessary to create an
Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer
to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and (3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s
project would qualify as an Economic Development TIF District. If such a TIF district were created
in conjunction with the proposed project it would generate approximately $190,000 over the life of
the district (the maximum term of Economic Development TIF Districts is 9 years). These funds
would then be used to partially reimburse the Development Fund for the funds provided to
Hardcoat.
Next Steps:
If the EDA wishes to support Hardcoat’s request for financial assistance project through the CAP, the City
Council will be asked to set a public hearing date for the establishment of an Economic Development TIF
District. In addition a Redevelopment Contract with Hardcoat will be drafted. Such a contract would be
brought back to the EDA for its review and formal consideration. In addition, a neighborhood meeting
will be scheduled to discuss the project and display renderings of the building’s renovated exterior and
grounds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Hardcoat up to $420,000 through the Construction Assistance Program to renovate the
former Flame Metals property. Such funds would be provided on a reimbursement basis and as a
forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the City’s various TIF districts. It is also proposed
that the EDA consider creating an Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with this
project so as to allow the EDA to reimburse itself approximately $190,000 of the above assistance
over the 9-year life of the district.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Construction Assistance Program is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachments: Staff report of October 25, 2010
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
Meeting Date: October 25, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Update/Application from Hardcoat Inc.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed at this time. This report is being provided for information purposes. This topic is
proposed to be discussed at the November 8 Study Session. Please contact staff with any questions
or comments
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Construction Assistance
Program (CAP) in general and preview an anticipated applicant’s proposed project. Hardcoat Inc.
plans to acquire 7317 & 7301 Lake Street West (former Flame Metals property) and completely
renovate the building and grounds. Hardcoat is seeking financial assistance thru the CAP and the
potential creation of an Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with the project.
BACKGROUND:
On July 19th the EDA and City Council approved the Construction Assistance Program (CAP)
Policy to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of commercial/industrial buildings
in St. Louis Park so as to create or retain local jobs. Since that time staff has discussed the
Program with approximately a dozen businesses that were considering some form of enhancement to
their buildings or facilities. Of those inquiries staff received three preliminary applications. Upon
further discussion relative to their proposed projects and the Program’s requirements, one company
(called Hardcoat Inc.) has elected to further pursue its funding request. Staff expects to receive an
application from another company in the coming weeks. It should be noted that in all of its
discussions with these businesses staff indicated (as per the EDA’s direction on July 19th) that the
maximum funding amount under the Program was $200,000 but that projects requiring larger
amounts would still be considered if they had merit.
In addition, on September 23rd, the City learned that MoneyGram had chosen to relocate its
headquarters from St. Louis Park to Dallas, Texas. Thus, funds set aside in anticipation of their
participation in the CAP (to expand the company’s headquarters) will no longer be needed. Yet
unknown is whether the company wishes to pursue the expansion of its Phase II operation in St.
Louis Park. The EDA had earmarked a similar amount under the Program for Phase II and it’s at the
DA’s discretion whether it wishes to affirm that offer.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
The Applicant:
Staff has been working for several months with Hardcoat Inc. on its CAP application. Hardcoat is a
nationally recognized provider of surface coatings to companies in high-tech industries. It presently leases
the property at 7300 West Lake Street in St. Louis Park. The business was founded in 1974. An
ownership change in 2007 led to significant upgrades in the business’ operations. As a result, Hardcoat
became one of very few companies in Minnesota certified by the National Aerospace and Defense
Contractors Association Program (NADCAP). NADCAP is an international standard administered by
the Performance Review Institute to ensure aircraft and aero-engines are of the highest possible quality.
Hardcoat's core service is precision coating aluminum parts and products using an anodizing, sulfuric
anodizing and chromate conversion coating. The coatings, which are typically applied at very high
tolerance levels, substantially increase the life expectancy of the part or product. The recent NADCAP
certification has given Hardcoat a leg-up on its competition, resulting in an upsurge in its current business
activity and its prospects for the future. The company's growing customer base includes:
• Medtronic
• Honeywell
• Boeing Aircraft
• Raytheon
Michael Kelner, the current owner, purchased Hardcoat from the company's founder in September 2007.
Mr. Kelner also serves as the company's Chief Executive Officer. Immediately prior to purchasing
Hardcoat, Mr. Kelner was an executive with Multiband Corporation, an entertainment/communication
provider. During Mr. Kelner’s ten year tenure, Multiband’s revenue grew from $6 million to $350
million. He continues to serve in an advisory role with the company.
The nearby building in which Hardcoat is currently located does not present the type of high quality
image it is seeking to portray to its growing list of top-tier customers. The building is sorely in need of
substantial renovation and repair; which the current owner is unwilling to do. In addition, the building is
inefficient as approximately half the space is virtually useable. Therefore, Hardcoat lacks sufficient room to
expand its operations at its current location.
Hardcoat’s operations are relatively quiet, odorless and fully contained within the building. Since its
inception, the City has not received any complaints from the South Oak Hill neighborhood relative to
Hardcoat’s operations.
The Proposed Project:
Hardcoat Inc plans to acquire the former Flame Metals property located across the street to the south
from its current location. The company will renovate the building and site, and relocate its operations
there. The new location is 3-plus acres in size. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600
square feet. It was constructed in 1963 using concrete block, steel bar joists and a built-up roof system
twenty feet in height. Both the interior and exterior is in a generally deteriorated state with numerous
building code deficiencies. The building has been unoccupied since Flame Metals’ departure in 2009.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
The proposed project includes a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as
well as the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet of office space on the north side of the building.
Once the renovation is complete, Hardcoat will initially occupy approximately 25,000 square feet of the
building. The balance will be leased to a complementary business and provide Hardcoat with future
expansion capacity.
In addition to the significant interior and exterior renovation of the building, other major project elements
include:
• Bringing the building into compliance with the City's Green Building Policy thereby significantly
improving its energy efficiency;
• Handling storm water on site to meet the City's stormwater discharge requirements;
• Constructing a new parking lot with significant landscape features;
• Making significant additional landscape improvements to render the site more compatible with
the adjacent park property and pathway owned by the City; and
• Improved ventilation and equipment upgrades will eliminate the odors that were emitted from the
building by Flame Metals, which had been an on-going problem for the surrounding residential
properties.
Current/Proposed Market Value:
The subject property’s 2010 assessed value is $1,184,700. The 2010 taxes payable for this property
total $37,542. Upon renovation the property would have an estimated market value of
approximately $2,625,000; an increase of $1,440,300. Total taxes payable would be approximately
$87,520; an increase of $49,978.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
Job Creation
Hardcoat currently has 14 employees and all will be retained in the relocation to the new building.
As a result of its expanded operations and the new business it anticipates generating, Hardcoat
believes an additional 6 to 25 employees could potentially be hired in the next 5 years. Additional
labor would be involved with the building renovation and small addition. Other jobs would likely be
created when a tenant leases the balance of the building.
Project Schedule
Hardcoat Inc. hopes to acquire the building early next year. It would likely begin interior building
renovations shortly thereafter. The entire project would likely be completed sometime next summer.
Land Use
The subject property is guided BP – Business Park and zoned IG – General Industrial. The
proposed project and use would be in conformance with both of these land use categories. The
Business Park land use designation is new and the standards for this district are not yet finalized. As
mentioned, Hardcoat plans to significantly enhance the exterior of the building and its grounds. As a
result, it is expected that it will be in conformance with the proposed Business Park zoning
requirements as well.
Request for Financial Assistance
Hardcoat has negotiated a Purchase Agreement with A & D Holdings LLC, (the current owner of
the property) for $1,050,000. The purchase price is $134,700 less than the property’s current
assessed value.
Hardcoat also plans to enter into a construction contract with RJ Marco Construction Inc. to
renovate the building and grounds. To date, the building has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned and
many (but not all) code deficiencies have been addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems
have been removed. Renovation will include a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and
dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy
efficient HVAC equipment, new landscaping, stormwater system and site amenities, as well as the
addition of 1,500 SF noted above for office and conference space. The total cost to renovate the
building and grounds has been estimated in the range of $1.1 million and $1.6 million. Hardcoat is
currently in process of refining those numbers with its contractors. As it now stands, Hardcoat’s
application requests $350,000 to $500,000 in Construction Assistance. The company’s actual
request amount will become clear once it has more precise project estimates.
Hardcoat has loan applications pending with two banks. To date those applications have cleared
both banks’ loan committees and are awaiting final review. Mr. Kelner anticipates hearing whether
his applications have been approved by either of these institutions shortly.
Proposed Funding Sources
The source of the CAP funds is tax increment generated by nine of the City’s TIF districts. These
funds would be disbursed from the Development Fund. Given the size of Hardcoat’s CAP request,
creation of an Economic Development TIF District is proposed to reimburse a portion of the CAP
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
funding. The proposed financial assistance would meet the requirements necessary to create an
Economic Development TIF District. Those requirements include: (1) encouraging a manufacturer
to remain in the state; (2) increasing employment; and (3) enhancing the tax base. Hardcoat’s
project would qualify as an Economic Development TIF District. If such a TIF district were created
in conjunction with the proposed project it would generate approximately $190,000 over the life of
the district (the maximum term of Economic Development TIF Districts is 9 years). These funds
would then be used to partially reimburse the Development Fund for the funds provided to
Hardcoat.
Compliance with the Construction Assistance Program Policy
The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s commercial/industrial
building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating existing ones so as to attract and
retain jobs as well as stimulate additional private investment in the city. The resulting new
investment from Hardcoat should result in a higher market value for the underlying
commercial or industrial property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The project
should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional neighborhood investment.
The substantial renovation of the former Flame Metals building as proposed by Hardcoat meets
all of the objectives for funding as expressed in the CAP Policy.
Compliance with Green Building Policy
Since Hardcoat’s request for financial assistance is greater than $200,000 it must comply with the
City’s recently adopted Green Building Policy. Mr. Kelner is aware of this requirement and has
expressed a ready willingness to comply. To that end, Mr. Kelner and his building renovation team
have met with the City’s green building consultant to review the Policy’s requirements and explore
what energy savings might be achieved in the course of designing the project. In addition, Xcel
Energy has agreed to accept Hardcoat into its Energy Design Assistance Program which provides
computer energy modeling, funding to offset the cost of design time associated with energy analysis,
financial incentives to improve cost effectiveness of choosing energy efficient measures and field
verification to ensure strategies are properly implemented.
Summary
The proposed renovation of the former Flame Metals building clearly has numerous benefits for the
surrounding neighborhood and the city. The proposed project would significantly enhance the
aesthetic appearance of the building from Lake Street on the North, the adjoining residential
neighborhood on the West as well as from the trail on the East. Given the site’s location on a main
throughway into the adjoining residential neighborhood, renovating the former Flame Metals
building will enhance the City’s overall image and the entrance to the South Oak Hill
neighborhood. Furthermore, the substantial renovation and investment in the property would result
in a substantial increase in its market value resulting in a greater property tax yield. Additionally it
would create additional employment opportunities and provide a burgeoning small business with
future expansion capability.
Next Steps:
Greater clarity on Hardcoat’s total project costs and actual funding request should come into focus the
next couple weeks. A study session discussion regarding Hardcoat’s proposed project and CAP application
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application from Hardcoat Inc.
has therefore been scheduled for November 8th. If the EDA is interested in moving forward on this
project, the City Council would subsequently be asked to set a public hearing date for the establishment of
an Economic Development TIF District. Staff would also begin negotiating a proposed Redevelopment
Contract with Hardcoat. Such a contract would be brought back to the EDA for its review and formal
consideration. In addition, a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled to discuss the project and display
renderings of the building’s new exterior.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Hardcoat Inc with between $350,000 and $500,000 through the Construction Assistance
Program to renovate the former Flame Metals property. Such funds would be provided as a
forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the City’s various TIF districts. It is also proposed
that the EDA consider creating an Economic Development TIF District in conjunction with this
project so as to allow the EDA to reimburse itself approximately $190,000 of the above assistance
over the 9-year life of the district.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Construction Assistance Program is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it
facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
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: November 8, 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:
Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this item is to discuss the Redeveloper’s plans for constructing the remaining
portions of the Hoigaard Village project and a realistic schedule for their completion. Mr. Frank
Dunbar representing Union Land II will be attending Monday’s Study Session to discuss this matter
with the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several months the Hoigaard Village developer (Union Land II LLC) and the
EDA/City have been focused on putting in place the permanent financing for the project. To that
end, on October 18th the EDA approved the issuance of $4,430,000 in Tax Exempt TIF Revenue
Bonds. While the refinancing of the Hoigaard Village project has now been resolved, market
conditions have held back completion of the remaining portions of the Hoigaard Village project.
The final two elements of Hoigaard Village, (the 58-unit condo building called “the Adagio” and the
22 rowhomes called “Medley Row”) were expected to break ground last month and be completed by
December 31, 2011. These commencement and completion dates were not going to be met so the
Redevelopment Contract with Union Land needed to be amended. Therefore, at the same October
18th meeting the EDA approved a Fifth Amendment which extended the deadlines for construction
on the Adagio and Medley Row elements of Hoigaard Village for one year. These components are
now to commence by October 1, 2011 and be completed by December 31, 2012. The purpose
behind the one year extension was to eliminate any technical default that could disrupt the
permanent financing that had been put in place; and to provide time for the City to work with the
Redeveloper to decide how to complete the undeveloped portions of the project.
The two largest components of the Hoigaard Village project, Harmony Vista (74 units and 25,000
SF of commercial space); and the 220 unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common elements
(contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all complete and
fully leased. The yet to be completed portions of the project are the smaller elements, the 58-unit
Adagio and the 22 row homes called Medley Row.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is not obligated to reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related to the Adagio
and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village until they are completed; and, the amount of
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Hoigaard Village Remaining Project Plans and Construction Schedule
reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by the development. Until the
Adagio and Medley Row project components are constructed they will not be contributing to the tax
increment available for reimbursement of the Redeveloper’s TIF-eligible expenses. It should be noted
that the Redeveloper already has incurred the expenses for which it is eligible for reimbursement.
The Redeveloper will have to continue to carry these costs until the development is completed.
Thus, the Redeveloper has every incentive to fully complete the project sooner rather than later.
The Contract extensions reflected the current market reality relating to condominium and
townhome sales in the Twin Cities. The construction delay means that the Redeveloper’s
reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to Stages 2 and 3 has likewise been delayed.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: 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: November 8, 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:
Process for Community Input on Environment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff desires direction from the City Council on this matter.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What additional process, if any, does the City Council wish to employ to gain input or
feedback from the community on environmental related matters
• Is there any additional information that is needed?
BACKGROUND:
As requested by Council, On September 13, 2010 staff presented an inventory and reported on what
is currently being done by the City from an environmental standpoint, a status update from the E-
Group, along with previous meeting minutes and past actions by the Council, staff or others in the
community.
Discussion also centered on Vision as it also relates to the City Council’s adopted Strategic
Direction: “St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business.”
After the presentation and conversation by Council, staff was directed to set aside time at an
upcoming study session for discussion on the question: Is there a need for a venue for residents to
have input or discussion on Environment and/or Energy in the community (see attached meeting
minutes).
DISCUSSION:
Bridget Gothberg, OD Coordinator will assist facilitating this discussion. Some ideas we heard from
the City Council included:
• Use existing commissions. We have 2 commissions that deal with many environmental or
energy activities - our Parks and Recreation and Planning Commission. One idea would be
to create an open forum with each of these commissions every 6 months, set aside a set time
and invite community members in to talk about environment related issues.
• Web input. Provide a mechanism on the City’s website to invite comments or ideas.
• Use existing organizations. The City could encourage citizens to become members or
support existing organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, Green Institute, etc.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
• Create a task force to frame the role(s), responsibilities of an Environmental Advisory
Commission. This task force would work closely with staff, based on council direction, and
come back with the recommendation for an Environmental Advisory Commission,
including its responsibilities, how it would best function etc.
• Continue Education/Communication/Other Thoughts: This could include using
Community Ed, our schools, a web blog, periodic cable programs, social media, etc as a
means to continue to increase communication and education on what the City is involved in
past, present and future relating to the environment.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION
St Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of City business
Attachments: Staffing Designations – Environmental Leads
Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2010
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
Staffing Designations – Environmental Leads
COMPLIANCE & ENERGY
MANAGEMENT
Building Inspectors
Erosion Control (Compliance)
Facilities Superintendent
City Buildings/Facilities, Energy Management
Environmental Health Specialist
Code Compliance
Environmental Health
Pollution (odors, light, noise)
Property Maintenance
Radon
Remediation/Pollution (Health Related)
Equipment Superintendent
Equipment & Fleet
WATER, WASTE & INFRASTRUCTURE
City Engineer
Storm Water – Overall Management and Oversight Planning
and Flood
Engineering Program Coordinator
Erosion Control (permits)
Flood Proofing Program – Grant Program
Storm Water (Plans, Permits)
Public Works Coordinator
Clean Up Days
Solid Waste & Recycling
Utilities Superintendent
Drinking Water
Groundwater Remediation
Non Point Source Mgmt. Program Plan - NPDES
Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer
Wellhead Protection
EDUCATION & NATURAL
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Environmental Coordinator
Arbor Day
Assist with policies and implementation
Community Aesthetics – Beautify the Park
Evergreen Award
Fish
Forestry, Landscaping and Vegetation
Evergreen Award
Pesticides and Fertilizer (Phosphorus)
Protected Waters
Trees
Wildlife Management
Wetlands
Westwood Nature Center Manager
Education (Content, Events, Programs,
Speakers)
Websites and Marketing
Westwood Nature Center
PLANNING & INCENTIVES
Economic Development Coordinator
Pollution/Remediation – Technical Assistance through LEED,
TIF, Redevelopment Policy
Housing Programs Coordinator
Green Buildings and Technical Assistance – Res.
Housing Improvement Programs (HIA, Loan Programs,
CDBG, Green Pilot Remodeling Program)
Planner
Green Buildings and Technical Assistance – Comm.
Shoreland Development
Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Conservation Easements
Development Controls
Floodplain - Zoning
Env. Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Env. Impact Statement
(EIS), Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR), etc.
Environmental Plan Review & Coordination
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & SPILLS
Fire Marshal
Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Spills and Reporting
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt (arrived at
8:07 p.m.), Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Director of Parks & Recreation
(Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr.
Hoffman), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Environmental Coordinator (Mr.
Vaughan), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley),
Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), City
Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 20 and September 27, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for September 20th and the
proposed study session agenda for September 27th.
Mr. Harmening introduced Mike Rose, reporter from Patch.com, AOL’s hyper-local community
news website set to debut later this year.
2. Environmental Activities Update 2008-2010
Ms Gohman presented the staff report and introduced the members of the City’s E-Group,
including Jamie Zwilling, Brian Hoffman, Scott Merkley, Scott Anderson, Jim Vaughan, Kathy
Larsen, Cindy Walsh, and Kevin Locke.
Mr. Zwilling presented an overview of his role as overall communications coordinator for the work
of the E-Group, including responsibility for the City’s website, media, public information pieces,
and the community at large. He stated that the City’s website has an environment section which
provides links to useful information pertaining to environmental initiatives. He stated that staff
follows the Vision Statement regarding environment and we incorporate it in all we do.
Mr. Hoffman presented an overview of his work on compliance and energy management, including
an audit analysis of the City’s existing facilities and an evaluation of the existing building conditions
to determine what energy improvements can be made. He indicated that other areas of focus
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
include the City’s equipment and fleet, indoor and outdoor air quality, Radon awareness, and noise
pollution.
Mr. Merkley presented an overview of his work on solid waste recycling. He stated that the City’s
2009 garbage collection tonnages decreased 2.6% from 2008 and recycling increased by 2.5% from
2008. He advised the City participates in a recycling revenue sharing from with Eureka whereby the
City has received over $93,000 in revenue sharing from recycling; this revenue is used to enhance the
City’s recycling program and other related activities. He discussed the Zero Waste event held at the
Westwood Nature Center for Earth Day 2010 and indicated that the City will be hosting two
workshops in October regarding backyard composting; other activities include working with the
elementary schools to promote recycling, a joint project with Eureka to create a promotional video
regarding the Twin Cities Free Market.
Mr. Anderson presented an overview of his work on the City’s surface water management plan,
storm water pollution prevention plan, erosion control and groundwater remediation. He stated
other areas of focus include hazardous materials and spills and the City’s water wellhead protection
plan, which includes practices to protect the City’s source water and identifies potential sources of
contamination. He indicated that the first energy study was completed in 1989 on the City’s water
treatment plants aimed at improving energy efficient operations through the use of variance
frequency drives; the study resulted in a decrease in kilowatts per million gallons of 2,345 kw/mg in
1993 to 1,950 kw/mg in 2008.
Mr. Vaughan presented an overview of his work on education and natural resources management,
including property owner consultations, policy assistance and implementation, community
aesthetics, rain gardens, native vegetation, pesticides and fertilizers, protected waters, compliance and
wetlands. He discussed the City’s annual Arbor Day celebrations, Beautify the Park program, Adopt
a Garden program, Pick up the Park program, and the various programs available at Westwood
Nature Center.
Ms. Larsen presented an overview of her work on planning and incentives, including environmental
oversight and enhancement aimed at increasing environmental consciousness. She stated that other
areas of focus include decreasing dependence on cars, adoption by the City of a green building
policy, and implementation of an assistance program for green home improvements.
Councilmember Ross asked how the City is actively working with residents that live on lakes to
educate them on erosion control and/or pollutants.
Mr. Vaughan stated that the City has educational materials available to residents on the importance
of buffer zones and use of native vegetation; the City also actively works with the watershed district
on these issues.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to see more focus on walk/bike initiatives. She
indicated she would also like to find ways to allow more citizen input into the overall process. She
indicated that there needs to be a venue or some way for residents to provide input, share
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
information with other residents, and discuss questions on environmental issues. She stated that
creating a way for residents to share ideas in an interactive fashion will help promote and realize the
City’s goal of environmental sustainability and stewardship.
Councilmember Sanger reiterated her suggestion that the Council consider appointing a temporary
environmental task force and requested that the Council have a further discussion regarding this
issue. She stated that there needs to be some sort of mechanism where residents can talk to each
other and collectively promote or address issues.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed his thanks to the E-Group members for their efforts on behalf
of the City. He stated his concern with adding another task force is the additional burden to staff
and added he was not in favor of a separate environmental commission. He stated environmental
work is part of everything we do in our work. He stated he would like to see additional focus on
recycling in the business community and to give consideration to a pilot program at Park Nicollet or
Methodist Hospital. He stated he would also like to see recycling instituted for the City’s multi
housing associations.
Councilmember Santa requested that Council receive historical information on its work with respect
to storm water, trails and sidewalks, the flood proofing program, Reilly Tar, and the City’s efforts
regarding forestry and Emerald Ash Borer.
Councilmember Ross stated that she agrees with Councilmember Finkelstein. She would also like to
see efforts made to increase awareness among the City’s bars and restaurants on recycling and to
encourage use of mass transit as it relates to the environment.
Councilmember Mavity stated she feels we are missing a venue for residents to give input and this
could be done in a variety of ways such as a survey, topical listening segments, or input on the web.
Mayor Jacobs stated there are other ways of adding to how input is received such as a cable show,
web blog, or other social media.
It was the consensus to bring back to Council the discussion on a venue for residents to have input
on Energy or Environment in the Community.
3. GreenStep Cities Update and Carbon Footprint Measurement
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
Ms. Larsen stated that the carbon footprint measurement is intended to provide a baseline of the
community’s current carbon footprint. She advised that in order to accomplish this, software is
required to take these measurements and convert energy uses to understandable and comparable
units. She explained that the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has
the software to accomplish this and St. Louis Park has been chosen as one of the pilot cities;
membership in ICLEI would be required to obtain access to the software.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
Councilmember Santa stated that it will be important to consider not only how much energy the
community is using, but also how that usage is mitigated and the associated savings.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to move forward with membership in ICLEI
and to place this item on the regular agenda for City Council action.
4. Storage – Fire Station No. 1
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Mr. Walther advised that staff has been working on accommodating the storage needs for records
and election equipment and has identified two options for handling those needs. He indicated that
the election equipment is proposed to be moved to the Municipal Service Center which will provide
a climate controlled space as well as a workspace for staff and election judges. He stated that the
City’s additional records storage needs can be accommodated by either (1) building a partial
basement at Fire Station No. 1 at a cost of approximately $407,000 or (2) by adding additional
space to the second floor of Fire Station No. 1 over apparatus bays #1 and #2 at a cost of
approximately $112,000.
Councilmembers Finkelstein and Ross stated that they supported Option No. 2.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she could not support Option No. 1 because of the cost. She
asked if staff has considered using the space at City Hall for records storage when the fire
management staff moves out.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that Option No. 1 is too expensive. She asked if the addition of two
feet to the second floor of Fire Station No. 1 will visually impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Walther replied this additional two feet will have no impact to the neighborhood.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to proceed with Option No. 2 (build space
on the second floor of Fire Station No. 1 over apparatus bays #1 and #2).
5. Charitable Gambling Ordinance Amendments
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report and reviewed the policy questions for Council consideration.
She stated that the City Attorney has advised that the Council may add another exemption to the
required contribution to the 10% Contribution Fund where lawful gambling activity occurs on
premises owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation.
Councilmember Sanger indicated the legal status of an entity at which charitable gambling takes
place has nothing to do with the use of the proceeds. She stated she was not in favor of a separate
exemption for entities that are nonprofit because their legal status is irrelevant.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
Councilmember Omodt stated that in his opinion, one of the goals is to keep more donations in the
community and to retain more oversight of the use of charitable gambling proceeds.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the current proposal is that of the 100% of charitable gambling
funds that are raised, if the proceeds are not expended within the City, then 10% of those proceeds
must go to the 10% Contribution Fund, and the remaining 90% can be spent however it chooses
within the state law and within the trade area. She indicated she did not feel the impact to the
charitable gambling organizations would be that dramatic.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the Council has previously expressed concern about who was
getting the charitable gambling proceeds and how those proceeds were being spent. He indicated he
felt that an exemption should be given to the American Legion as a nonprofit establishment.
Councilmember Sanger stated that there would be nothing to stop an organization from filing for
nonprofit status in order to qualify for an exemption.
Mr. Harmening reminded the Council that the City is not the authority that determines whether a
particular organization’s expenditures are permissible or lawful, that authority rests with the State.
Councilmember Ross stated that she felt it was important to support the American Legion.
Councilmember Mavity asked if a nonprofit owner and operator of charitable gambling, like the
American Legion, can be the recipient of those charitable gambling funds. She stated if the answer is
yes, then this issue is moot.
Ms. Gohman agreed to research Councilmember Mavity’s question and report back to Council.
Councilmember Omodt asked what would happen if the Council took no action on this particular
issue. He stated the intent of the Council was not to micromanage the charitable gambling
operations in the City as well as to keep as much of the charitable gambling proceeds in the
community.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare separate motions for Council
consideration of the proposed gambling ordinance amendments regarding the local gambling tax
increase, a 10% Contribution Fund requirement, and exemptions for those organizations who
expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St. Louis or for those
organizations where gambling occurs on a premises owned or operated by a nonprofit corporation.
6. Discussion on 2011 Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, Long Range Financial
Management Plan, Utility Rates, Franchise Fees, and Final Levies
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated since the time of Council’s adoption of the
preliminary tax levy on September 7th, staff has received information from the County with respect
to the fiscal disparities pool that will impact the tax levy. He advised that the City’s tax base
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
remained stable, particularly in the commercial and industrial areas, and this will result in a larger
contribution to the fiscal disparities pool. He added that any change to the maximum tax levy will
not impact the final 2011 budget and relates only to the truth in taxation notices mailed to residents
later this year.
Mr. Swanson reviewed the City’s net tax capacity, approximately $56 million, which drives the
City’s tax rate. He advised that the City’s net tax capacity has changed due to changes in market
value, changes in fiscal disparities, and changes in TIF tax capacity, resulting in the City’s increased
net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool of $2.7 million, or an increase of 125%.
Mr. Bultema explained the rationale for the fiscal disparities pool and the impact of the City’s TIF
districts coming on line.
Mr. Swanson discussed the County’s fiscal disparities calculation and stated that the City’s
contribution increased by approximately $1.5 million. He explained that the City’s commercial
properties decreased in value less than other metro communities and the City experienced more new
development and redevelopment than other communities. He advised that the City’s TIF capacity
increased by approximately $367,000 due to projects like the West End, and as taxable market
valuations increased the City’s fiscal disparities contribution increased. He presented information
regarding estimated City taxes for 2011 based on a 4.88% levy using the revised net tax capacity.
He also presented information regarding various levy amounts and the impact of these amounts on
the 2011 and projected 2012 budgets. He stated that the 2012 budget will be significantly impacted
by the fire station debt service.
It was the consensus of the City Council to not make any changes to the 2011 budget, including the
2011 preliminary property tax levy.
Councilmember Sanger encouraged staff to provide residents with information before the truth in
taxation notices are mailed regarding the Council’s discussion and how the fiscal disparities pool
impacts their share of property taxes.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the Council continue to monitor the 2011 budget as it
relates to the contract with Golden Valley. He also requested that the Council continue to discuss
the 2012 budget as it relates to the City’s bonding for the fire stations. He stated that it will be
important for the Council to remain cognizant of any budget impacts as a result of legislative actions
and the impact of State budget cuts on the City and its ability to provide services.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the Council hold a discussion regarding potential budget cuts
and the implication of those budget cuts to the City.
7. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
There were no communications.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Subject: Process for Community Input on Environment
The City Council conducted its meeting check-in.
The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. Proposed Rental Licensing Ordinance Changes
9. Eliot School Draft Design Guidelines
10. Liquor License Application – El Gordo Uno, Inc. Historical Information
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: November 8, 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:
Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is being provided to assist with the Study Session discussion regarding a voluntary
registration program for domestic partners.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to pursue creating a Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program?
BACKGROUND:
Council has asked that this matter be brought to a Study Session for a policy discussion.
In Minnesota, the following cities have a registration program for domestic partners: Minneapolis,
St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, Edina and Maplewood. Attached is the ordinance recently passed by
Edina. Prior to implementation in Edina, the City Council had its Human Rights and Relations
Commission review the issue and make a recommendation to the Council.
Also attached is background information from a couple of sources on this topic.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: City of Edina Ordinance 2010-12
Lawyers.com – Domestic Partner Information
Outfront Minnesota Background Information
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDINA CITY CODE
CONCERNING DOMESTIC PARTNERS
THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 195 to provide as
follows:
195.01 Purpose.
The City of Edina authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of registration of domestic
partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples who
reside or work in Edina and who share a life and home together may document their relationship.
Edina’s Domestic Partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights, privileges, or
responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law. The City of Edina
cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants and registrants may wish
to consult with an attorney for such advice including but not limited to: wills, medical matters,
finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, medical, health care and employment
benefits.
195.02 Definitions.
The following words and phrases used in this Code have the meanings given in this Section.
Domestic Partner. Any two adults who meet all the following:
1. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state.
2. Are not married.
3. Are competent to enter into a contract.
4. Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life.
5. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other,
except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
6. Do not have any other domestic partner(s).
7. Are both at least 18 years of age.
8. At least one of whom resides in Edina or is employed in Edina.
Domestic Partnership. The term “domestic partnership” shall include, upon production of
valid, government-issued documentation, in addition to domestic partnerships registered with
the City of Edina, and regardless of whether partners in either circumstance have sought further
registration with the City of Edina:
A. Any persons who have a currently-registered domestic partnership with a governmental body
pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration. The term domestic
partnership shall be construed liberally to include unions, regardless of title, in which two
individuals are committed to one another as married persons are traditionally committed, except
for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
B. Marriages that would be legally recognized as a contract of lawful marriage in another local,
state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of Minnesota law.
195.03 Registration of Domestic Partnerships.
A. The City Clerk shall accept an application in a form provided by the City to register domestic
partners who state in such application that they meet the definition of domestic partners.
B. The City Clerk shall charge an application fee for the registration of domestic partners and shall
charge a fee for providing certified copies of registrations, amendments, or notices of termination.
The fees required by this Section shall be in the amount set forth in Section 185 of this Code.
C. The City Clerk shall provide each domestic partner with a registration certificate. The
registration certificate shall not be issued prior to the third working day after the date of the
application.
D. This application and certificate may be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic partner
relationship.
E. The City Clerk shall keep a record of all registrations of domestic partnership, amendments to
registrations and notices of termination. The records shall be maintained so that amendments and
notices of termination are filed with the registration of domestic partnership to which they pertain.
F. The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination notices
shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
195.04 Amendments.
The City Clerk may accept amendments for filing from persons who have domestic partnership
registrations on file, except amendments which would replace one of the registered partners with
another individual.
195.05 Termination of Domestic Partnership.
Domestic partnership registration terminates when the earliest of the following occurs:
1. One of the partners dies; or
2. Forty-five days after one partner: a) sends the other partner written notice, on a form
provided by the City, that he or she is terminating the partnership; and b) files the notice of
termination and an affidavit of service of the notice on the other partner with the City Clerk.
Section 2. Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 197 to provide as
follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
197.01 Homestead designation. Eligibility for the designation of property as a
homestead, the application process and the verification process are set forth in State Statutes.
In administering the state homestead statutes the City will not impose any additional
requirements on domestic partners.
197.02 Fees. If the City offers a family fee, family membership or family registration,
domestic partners are entitled to the same family fee, family membership or family
registration.
Section 3. Section 150.10, Subd. 3 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows:
Subd. 3 Purpose. Sick leave with pay may be granted to employees entitled thereto when
the employee is unable to perform scheduled work duties due to illness/disability, the
necessity for medical, dental or chiropractic care, childbirth or pregnancy disability, exposure
to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the
employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave with
pay may also be granted for a variety of other family and medical circumstances. The amount
and conditions under which sick leave with pay may be used for such circumstances is
provided in the family and medical leave policy adopted pursuant to Subsection 150.13 of
this Code. Sick leave with pay may be granted for a maximum of five scheduled work days in
the event of the death of an employee's spouse, domestic partner, father, mother or child;
spouse's father, mother or child; or domestic partner’s father, mother or child and a
maximum of three days in the event of the death of an employee's grandparent, grandchild,
brother or sister.
Section 4. Section 185.02 Schedule A of the Edina City Code is amended by adding the
following:
SECTION SUBSECTION PURPOSE OF FEE OR CHARGE AMOUNT
195 195.03 registration of domestic partners $25
195 195.03 certified copies of registration, amendments $10
or notice of termination of domestic partners
Section 5. This ordinance is effective upon passage and publication.
First Reading: May 18, 2100
Second Reading: June 1, 2010
Published: June 10, 2010
Attest:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor
Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Thursday, June 10, 2010
Send two affidavits of publication.
Bill to Edina City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
1 Domestic Partnership Registration and Benefits
Sherrie Bennett
1.1 Government Registration
Government entities increasingly give legal recognition to people who are unmarried but living together by allowing couples to
register with government agencies as a "domestic partnership."
This allows you the formal recognition akin to a marriage certificate. In some places, simply registering allows same sex couples to
visit each other in jail or hospital facilities and buy real estate jointly.
If you're registering a domestic partnership with a governmental entity such as a city, town or state, the registration may become
public record.
Some governments also extend the same health care benefits to registered domestic partners that would be extended to the spouse
of a government employee.
1.2 Employer Benefits
An increasing number of private employers offer employees domestic partnership benefits, which can include:
Health care and other insurance eligibility
Family leave for illness or bereavement
Child care assistance
Pension benefits given to spouses of employees
You can check with your employer's human resources department to find out what specific benefits might be available to domestic
partners.
1.3 Eligibility Requirements
Although requirements vary greatly from one company to another, in order to be eligible, you must generally prove:
You have lived together for a minimum period of time and intend to live together indefinitely
You are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent
You're not so closely related by blood that marriage would be impossible under local marriage laws
You're not already married or in another domestic partnership
You have a committed relationship and are responsible for each other's living expenses
Most companies and governments require your registration to be formally witnessed and sworn under oath, similar to a marriage
certificate.
1.4 Tax Implications
If your domestic partner receives insurance benefits from your employer, and you don't provide more than 50 percent of your
domestic partner's support, you may end up paying state and federal taxes equal to the cash value of the insurance. So it's a good
idea to discuss the tax consequences with an accountant before applying for domestic partner benefits.
1.5 Terminating Domestic Partnership Benefits
If you split up, either partner can end a formalized domestic partnership by signing a termination of partnership document and
notifying the other partner. If the registration was public record, the termination of the domestic partnership should also be public
record.
If your domestic partnership registration included a statement that you and your partner were responsible for each other's living
expenses, you'll probably want to immediately notify your ex-partner's creditors in writing that you'll no longer be responsible for his
or her bills.
What are municipal domesticWhat are municipal domesticWhat are municipal domesticWhat are municipal domestic----partner registration ordinances?partner registration ordinances?partner registration ordinances?partner registration ordinances?
In 1991, the City of Minneapolis created Minnesota’s first municipal domestic-
partner registration ordinance. Since then, other cities have followed suit:
Duluth (2009), St. Paul (2009), Edina (2010), and Rochester (2010). These
ordinances allow a couple, whether same-sex or different-sex, to register as
domestic partners for a nominal fee (usually $20-$25) and receive a certificate
that verifies their registration.
MMMMunicipal domesticunicipal domesticunicipal domesticunicipal domestic----partner partner partner partner registrationregistrationregistrationregistrationssss serve purpose serve purpose serve purpose serve purposes beyond s beyond s beyond s beyond
symbolism.symbolism.symbolism.symbolism.
Undeniably, under Minnesota law, local governments are very restricted in terms
of the rights or privileges they could attach to a domestic-partner registration.
In particular, local governments in Minnesota may not offer their employees’
domestic partners health coverage akin to that provided to employees’ spouses.
(Other employment benefits, e.g., bereavement leave, may be offered.) A
registration ordinance provides unmarried couples who attest that they satisfy
the City’s definition of a “domestic partnership” the ability to secure
government documentation that a relationship exists. That documentation
function strengthens couples’ ability to secure benefits or protections from
businesses, hospitals, or other entities which can rely on a registration certificate
for their paperwork needs.
MMMMunicipal domesticunicipal domesticunicipal domesticunicipal domestic----partner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinancessss impose impose impose impose no costs on no costs on no costs on no costs on
local businesses.local businesses.local businesses.local businesses.
None of the domestic-partner ordinances passed in Minnesota requires any
private business or other entity to pay to provide financial benefits of any kind to
couples who register. Much of the conversation about domestic partnerships
relates to health benefits; under Federal law, in most cases no city or state can
require that private employers provide any particular health benefits to their
employees. A domestic-partner registration ordinance, however, can make it
easier for those businesses who would like to provide these or other benefits but
who don’t want to create their own, internal registration processes.
(over)
310 Street East, Suite 204 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409-1337
Phone: 612-822-0127 Statewide: 800-800-0350 Fax: 612-822-8786
www.outfront.org
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
Page 6
PPPPassing a municipal domesticassing a municipal domesticassing a municipal domesticassing a municipal domestic----partner registration ordinance imposepartner registration ordinance imposepartner registration ordinance imposepartner registration ordinance imposes no s no s no s no
costs on a City itself.costs on a City itself.costs on a City itself.costs on a City itself.
The cost of preparing forms for couples to use for registration is more than
offset by the registration fee couples are charged. Passing a domestic-partner
registration ordinance does not require a City to provide any particular benefits
to its employees’ domestic partners, though naturally a City may choose to do
so, other than dependent health coverage.
MMMM unicipal domestiunicipal domestiunicipal domestiunicipal domesticccc----partner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinancepartner registration ordinances can help attract s can help attract s can help attract s can help attract
businesses businesses businesses businesses andandandand residents. residents. residents. residents.
There is no evidence that in twenty years’ experience, businesses or residents
have left, or declined to move to, Minneapolis due to its domestic-partner
registration ordinance. In OutFront Minnesota’s experience, local leaders
express support for such ordinances because they believe they enhance their
city’s reputation as welcoming to all families and communities, and that this is
conducive to welcoming new businesses and residents.
MMMM uniuniuniunicipal domesticcipal domesticcipal domesticcipal domestic----partner registries do not partner registries do not partner registries do not partner registries do not affect placeaffect placeaffect placeaffect places of worship.s of worship.s of worship.s of worship.
A municipal domestic-partner registration ordinance is entirely a function of civil
government and has no effect on places of worship. Should a place of worship
choose to conduct a ceremony for domestic partners, they are of course free
and welcome to do so, but no government entity may require that a place of
worship recognize or act on a domestic-partner registration.
M unicipal domesticMunicipal domesticMunicipal domesticMunicipal domestic----partner registries do not violate statpartner registries do not violate statpartner registries do not violate statpartner registries do not violate state law.e law.e law.e law.
While Minnesota law currently restricts marriage to different-sex couples, state
law also allows local governments to register domestic partners. Each of the
domestic-partner registration ordinances in Minnesota provides for recognition
of registrations from other cities, as well as domestic partnerships, civil unions,
and even marriages from other jurisdictions – as municipal domestic
partnerships, and nothing more. Domestic-partnership registration ordinances
do not create or limit rights or obligations in such areas as inheritance, adoption,
child custody, separation, or related areas governed solely by State law.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 5)
Subject: Domestic Partner Voluntary Registration Program
Page 7
Meeting Date: November 8, 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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (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: November 8, 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:
2011 City-wide Property Maintenance Evaluation of One and Two Single Family Detached
Properties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required; this report is being provided to inform the Council of the project scheduled to
begin in 2011. Please inform staff of any questions or concerns that you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council desire staff to undertake the 2011 City-wide Property Maintenance Evaluation of
One and Two Single Family Detached Properties?
BACKGROUND:
The City has successfully implemented two cycles of the citywide inspection/rehab program - the
pilot program in 2001/2002, with another round in 2005/2006. This programmatic carrot-stick
approach to address single family properties with exterior maintenance problems was developed
based on discussion with city officials. Homes with significant exterior maintenance deficiencies were
identified by Inspections staff and owners were notified of the problems. They were offered home
improvement technical and financial assistance to make improvements. In the event violations were
not corrected, Inspection’s staff took appropriate action to ensure compliance.
A systematic identification of single family properties with code violations and maintenance problems
was conducted from the public street right of way and public alleys. During the first survey process
200 properties were identified for follow-up. Typical problems included deteriorated garages, roofs
and fascia, damaged or broken windows and doors, damaged or unpainted siding, dilapidated
accessory buildings, failing decks, porches and retaining walls. In the 2005/2006 survey 212 homes
were identified.
Listed below are statistics and findings resulting from the efforts of the last two city-wide evaluations:
2001-2002 2005-2006
Total homes identified 200 212
Percentage of Garage violations only 15% 50%
Percentage of owners using low-income
home improvement loans
10% 6%
Percentage of owners using low-interest
home improvement loans
11% 8%
Percentage of voluntary compliance 93% 97%
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: 2011 City-wide Property Maintenance Evaluation of One and Two Single Family Detached Properties
Once the homes were identified for the program incentives, the city offered remodeling services and
low interest loans to assist homeowners with the required repairs. A combination of City Housing
Rehab funds and Mn Housing Finance Agency grants were used for these services. In 2006 the Mn
Housing Finance Agency awarded St. Louis Park, the “Housing Development Choice Award” as an
effective model to address a chronic problem experienced by cities throughout Minnesota.
In addition to the approximately 200 properties included in 2001/2002 and 2005/2006 programs,
there were many other properties identified having minor non-compliant property maintenance
issues that were provided the standard correction notice with follow-up. These properties did not
require any home remodeling services or funding through the home improvement loans offered.
2011 INITIATIVE:
The next citywide evaluation is scheduled to occur March/April 2011. Two inspectors from the
Inspections Department will be designated to complete the systemic survey of approximately 12,000
one and two family dwellings within four – six weeks. Subsequently, follow-up action will be taken
with the identified properties. The city will use its existing home improvement advisory services and
discount loans as an incentive to qualifying owners for correcting exterior maintenance deficiencies.
Also as part of this project, properties with minor exterior property maintenance deficiencies will be
identified and property owners notified as staff presently does with our on-going Property
Maintenance Program.
By completing the survey in the spring it allows homeowners a sufficient amount of time to make
necessary corrections and bring their properties into compliance in 2011. Residents will be made
aware of this effort to maintain and improve housing within the community through the Park
Perspective, City’s website, Cable TV and social media.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No additional staff will be needed to conduct the survey, notify the property owners, or conduct the
follow-up inspections. The home remodeling services and loans will be funded through the Housing
Rehab Fund budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This effort is consistent with the City Councils Strategic Direction of providing for a well
maintained and diverse housing stock.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: November 8, 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:
Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. This report is for information purposes only. The purchase
agreement is scheduled for the November 15, 2010 regular council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on a request by Namakan Properties, LLC, to
purchase excess MnDOT right-of-way. Namakan Properties owns the Carpet King property at
8225 State Highway 7, across from Knollwood Mall. Please inform staff of any questions or
concerns that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
The parcel owned by Namakan Properties is located on the southeast quadrant of State Highway 7
and Blake Road. The property is improved with a small retail building that is currently occupied
with Carpet King and The Little Gym (see attached site map). The building also has a vacant
tenant space that cannot be leased due to insufficient parking. There is a considerable amount of
excess MnDOT right-of-way adjacent to the mall, and Namakan Properties would like to purchase
some of the land so they can expand the parking lot. The additional parking will enable them to
lease the remaining tenant space.
MnDOT Review:
Namakan Properties first expressed an interest in the MnDOT land early in 2009. At the time,
MnDOT was beginning a reconstruction of the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection, so the request
was deferred until the improvements were completed (October of 2009). At the conclusion of the
project, MnDOT determined there was excess land that could be sold, and the process was initiated.
MnDOT determined it only needed approximately 15 feet from the edge of Blake Road and the
Highway 7 frontage road, and was willing to vacate the remaining land.
City Review:
Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that MnDOT was willing to vacate all but 15 feet of the
right-of-way. The Community Development and Public Works Departments determined
additional right-of-way should be preserved. While the MnDOT improvements alleviated some
visibility and safety issues at the intersection, the Highway 7/Blake Road intersection is still
congested, and it is not unreasonable to assume that additional intersection improvements will be
needed in the future. In addition to the potential for future intersection improvements, the city also
owns a monument sign in the right-of-way MnDOT determined to be excess.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Staff recommended that a significant portion of the right-of-way be kept at the intersection, and that
the remaining right-of-way adjacent to the new cul-de-sac be vacated. (See Exhibit) This gives the
city and MnDOT sufficient space for future intersection improvements, it keeps the city monument
in the public right-of-way, and the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is sufficient in size to give
Namakan Properties the number of parking spaces needed to lease the remaining tenant space in the
mall. The recommendation was accepted by MnDOT and Namakan Properties.
Process for Re-Conveyance of MnDOT Land:
State law requires the sale of MnDOT land to be conveyed through the city. The process is for
MnDOT to sell the land to the city, and the city would sell it to Namakan Properties. The
transactions are set up to be simultaneous, so the city would own the land for only a moment. All
costs associated with the sale of the land would be paid by Namakan, including city staff time.
Next Step:
City Council approval is required to sell the land. Therefore, the city attorney prepared the attached
purchase agreement between the city and Namakan Properties for the council to consider on
November 15th. Approval of the agreement would authorize staff to sell the land to Namakan
Properties, and it would require Namakan Properties to pay all expenses associated with the
transaction. The purchase price of the MnDOT land is $44,500. An additional $1,000 would be
paid by Namakan Properties to cover city expenses.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The re-conveyance of MnDOT land would place more land in the private sector, and increase the
city tax base at no cost to the city.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Site Map
Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
SITE MAP Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8) Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land Page 3
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 4
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 5
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 6
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 7
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 8
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Update on Purchase Agreement for Re-Conveyance of Vacant MnDOT Land
Page 9
Meeting Date: November 8, 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 Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on the proposed issuance of
the Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bonds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing
General Obligation Taxable Build America Bonds (BAB’s) to assist in financing the construction of
two new Fire Stations? Please inform staff of any questions or concerns that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
On November 15 the City Council will be asked to start the process for the issuance of bonds for
the PPL/Louisiana Court Project and the Fire Station Project. It is proposed that the bond issues for
Louisiana Court and the Fire Stations be done simultaneously in order to save the City money in
issuance costs. The whole bond issuance process will occur starting from the middle of November
with the estimated closing date the week of December 26, 2010. A proposed schedule is attached
for City Council review.
Louisiana Court
For several months the City Council has been discussing financial issues relative to the PPL and the
Louisiana Court project. As a part of this, a discussion took place regarding the refinancing of the
bonds for this project. The Council concurred that the refinancing of the bonds should be
undertaken along with other steps.
As discussed previously with the City Council, the new overall refinancing plan results in
approximately a $1.9 million reduction in the debt carried by the City and paid by Louisiana Court.
The long term strength of Louisiana Court is improved by the combination of debt reduction and
capital improvements incorporated in the refinancing plan. The debt service is dramatically reduced
and it takes advantage of currently lower interest rates.
Fire Stations
This project is nearing the end of the Design Development phase. The City Council is scheduled to
receive a full update on this project at a special study session prior to the Council meeting on
November 15.
The project budget for constructing both stations (all costs) is approximately $15.7 million.
Updated cost estimates will be presented to City Council at the special study session.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
PROPOSED BOND ISSUANCE PROESS
Louisiana Court General Obligation Refunding Bonds
This bond issue will refund the existing Louisiana Court Bonds in an amount of approximately
$1,850,000 over a term of 30 years. This is an extension from the current bond issue and, as such,
will require a public hearing which is scheduled for December 6th. As mentioned above, this
refunding will significantly reduce Louisiana Court’s debt obligation with the goal of aiding in long
term sustainability for the complex.
Fire Station General Obligation Build America Bonds (BAB’s)
This bond issue will be facilitated by utilizing Build America Bonds (BAB’s), which is a program
that is part of the Federal Government’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These
bonds are a taxable issue, with a 35% rebate provided by the federal government, effectively
providing a projected interest savings to the City of St. Louis Park over traditional tax exempt bonds.
The BAB’s are also more attractive to investors due to the higher interest rate they provide, thereby
benefitting both the issuer and the buyer. For example, with an estimated total project cost of
approximately $15.7 million with $3.0 million coming from the Fire Pension Fund, leaving an
estimated bond issue varying from $12.5 – $13.0 million, the City could possibly realize a present
value savings of approximately $408,000 - $428,000 over the life of the bonds. Attached are some
bond runs provided by Ehlers and Associates showing the potential differences between BAB’s and
traditional financing. Annual debt service would range from approximately $880,000 - $960,000
based on the sizing of the bonds. Currently, these bonds must be issued by December 31, 2010 to
qualify for the ARRA program.
The BAB’s also have more reporting requirements and require more administrative work over the life
of them versus traditional bonds. First, a Post Issuance Compliance Policy must be in place after the
bonds are issued, which would be brought to Council in early 2011 if they choose to issue BAB’s.
Next, a tax form must be filed for each interest payment over the life of the bond to receive the
rebate. Also, there is a 50% likelihood of being audited by the IRS over the life of the BAB’s.
However, staff still feels that the additional reporting and audit possibility is outweighed by the
potential savings over the life of the bonds.
Next Steps
What follows is a synopsis of the process moving forward: A presale review by City Council on
November 15, 2010, with a public hearing for refunding the Louisiana Court bonds on December
6, 2010. Also on December 6, 2010 the sale of the bonds would occur for both Louisiana Court
and the Fire Stations with City Council then awarding the sale of the bonds that evening. The
bonds would then be scheduled to close the week of December 26, 2010. A complete schedule is
attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
By refunding the Louisiana Court bonds and issuing BAB’s for the Fire Stations construction, the
City would be realizing savings in the long term.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Proposed Bond Sale Schedule
Proposed Bond Projections as Prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
October 18, 2010
Proposed Bond Sale Schedule for
- General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
Series 2010C (Louisiana Court)
- General Obligation Bonds, Series
2010D (Fire Station)
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
Page 4
Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule
Staff and Ehlers review bond options: Week of October 25, 2010
Distribute Pre-Sale Report to staff for review: Week of October 25, 2010
Pre-Sale Review by City Council: November 15, 2010
Distribute Official Statement to S & P: November 18, 2010
Distribute Official Statement to City Council: November 24, 2010
Conference call with Rating Agencies: Week of November 22, 2010
Rating released to City: Week of November 29, 2010
La. Ct. Public Hearing. and Sale of Bonds and
Council award of sale for La. Ct. and Fire Stations:
December 6, 2010
Estimated Closing Date: Week of December 26, 2010
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance
Page 5
City of St. Louis Park, MNBuild America Bond ComparisonAssumes Current Market Rates ("AAA") + 35 bpOption 1 - $12,500,000 Net ProceedsPar Amount of Bonds 13,155,000 Par Amount of Bonds 13,150,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Reoffering Premium (Discount) Reoffering Premium (Discount)- 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Equity Contribution (Discount/COI over 2% of Par)- Total Sources 13,150,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Sources 13,155,000 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) 131,500 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250%) 164,438 Costs of Issuance 65,000 Costs of Issuance 85,000 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fd 451,743 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 401,229 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,500,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,500,000 Rounding Amount 1,757 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Rounding Amount 4,334 Total Uses 13,150,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Uses 13,155,000 Call Date:2/1/2018Call Date: 2/1/2018Average Coupon:4.6830%Average Coupon: 3.4060%Effective Rate:3.0440%AnnualPeriod35.00%Effective TaxSavingsLevy Collect EndingCap Total FederalNetCapNetTaxable Exempt Annual Post-Year Year Date Principal Rate Interest Interest P & I RebateP & IPrincipal Rate Interest InterestP & IRate1Rate Spread Rebate2009 2010 12/15/2010- - - - - 2010 2011 2/1/2012617,275 (401,229) 216,046 (216,046) (0) 451,743 (451,743) - - 2011 2012 2/1/2013 530,000 1.85% 547,338 1,077,338 (191,568) 885,769 515,000 1.35% 400,560 915,560 1.20% 1.35% -0.15% 29,7912012 2013 2/1/2014 540,000 2.05% 537,533 1,077,533 (188,136) 889,396 525,000 1.45% 393,608 918,608 1.33% 1.45% -0.12% 29,2112013 2014 2/1/2015 545,000 2.35% 526,463 1,071,463 (184,262) 887,201 530,000 1.55% 385,995 915,995 1.53% 1.55% -0.02% 28,7942014 2015 2/1/2016 555,000 2.70% 513,655 1,068,655 (179,779) 888,876 540,000 1.85% 377,780 917,780 1.76% 1.85% -0.09% 28,9042015 2016 2/1/2017 565,000 2.95% 498,670 1,063,670 (174,535) 889,136 550,000 2.15% 367,790 917,790 1.92% 2.15% -0.23% 28,6552016 2017 2/1/2018 575,000 3.15% 482,003 1,057,003 (168,701) 888,302 560,000 2.35% 355,965 915,965 2.05% 2.35% -0.30% 27,66320172018 2/1/2019 585,000 3.40% 463,890 1,048,890 (162,362) 886,529 575,000 2.60% 342,805 917,805 2.21% 2.60% -0.39% 31,2772018 2019 2/1/2020 600,000 3.60% 444,000 1,044,000 (155,400) 888,600 590,000 2.80% 327,855 917,855 2.34% 2.80% -0.46% 29,2552019 2020 2/1/2021 615,000 3.85% 422,400 1,037,400 (147,840) 889,560 605,000 2.95% 311,335 916,335 2.50% 2.95% -0.45% 26,7752020 2021 2/1/2022 630,000 4.05% 398,723 1,028,723 (139,553) 889,170 625,000 3.10% 293,488 918,488 2.63% 3.10% -0.47% 29,3182021 2022 2/1/2023 645,000 4.25% 373,208 1,018,208 (130,623) 887,585 640,000 3.25% 274,113 914,113 2.76% 3.25% -0.49% 26,5282022 2023 2/1/2024 660,000 4.45% 345,795 1,005,795 (121,028) 884,767 665,000 3.35% 253,313 918,313 2.89% 3.35% -0.46% 33,5462023 2024 2/1/2025 680,000 4.65% 316,425 996,425 (110,749) 885,676 685,000 3.40% 231,035 916,035 3.02% 3.40% -0.38% 30,3592024 2025 2/1/2026 700,000 4.85% 284,805 984,805 (99,682) 885,123 710,000 3.50% 207,745 917,745 3.15% 3.50% -0.35% 32,6222025 2026 2/1/2027 725,000 5.00% 250,855 975,855 (87,799) 888,056 735,000 3.60% 182,895 917,895 3.25% 3.60% -0.35% 29,8392026 2027 2/1/2028 750,000 5.10% 214,605 964,605 (75,112) 889,493 760,000 3.65% 156,435 916,435 3.32% 3.65% -0.34% 26,9422027 2028 2/1/2029 775,000 5.20% 176,355 951,355 (61,724) 889,631 790,000 3.75% 128,695 918,695 3.38% 3.75% -0.37% 29,0642028 2029 2/1/2030 800,000 5.35% 136,055 936,055 (47,619) 888,436 820,000 3.80% 99,070 919,070 3.48% 3.80% -0.32% 30,6342029 2030 2/1/2031 825,000 5.50% 93,255 918,255 (32,639) 885,616 850,000 3.90% 67,910 917,910 3.58% 3.90% -0.33% 32,2942030 2031 2/1/2032 855,000 5.60% 47,880 902,880 (16,758) 886,122 880,000 3.95% 34,760 914,760 3.64% 3.95% -0.31% 28,63813,155,000 7,691,185 (401,229) 20,444,956 (2,691,915) 17,753,042 13,150,000 5,644,893 (451,743) 18,343,150 590,109407,9461Effective Taxable Rate is equal to the taxable rate less 35.00%.PV Savings =Proposed Taxable Build America BondsProposed Tax-Exempt BondsComparisonBond InformationTax ExemptTaxablePrepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.10/29/2010Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9) Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance Page 6
City of St. Louis Park, MNBuild America Bond ComparisonAssumes Current Market Rates ("AAA") + 35 bpOption 2 - $12,800,000 Net ProceedsPar Amount of Bonds 13,465,000 Par Amount of Bonds 13,465,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Reoffering Premium (Discount) Reoffering Premium (Discount)- 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Equity Contribution (Discount/COI over 2% of Par)- Total Sources 13,465,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Sources 13,465,000 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) 134,650 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250%) 168,313 Costs of Issuance 65,000 Costs of Issuance 85,000 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fd 462,567 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 410,705 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,800,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 12,800,000 Rounding Amount 2,783 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Rounding Amount 982 Total Uses 13,465,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Uses 13,465,000 Call Date:2/1/2018Call Date: 2/1/2018Average Coupon:4.6831%Average Coupon: 3.4061%Effective Rate:3.0440%AnnualPeriod35.00%Effective TaxSavingsLevy Collect EndingCap Total FederalNetCapNetTaxable Exempt Annual Post-Year Year Date Principal Rate Interest Interest P & I RebateP & IPrincipal Rate Interest InterestP & IRate1Rate Spread Rebate2009 2010 12/15/2010- - - - - 2010 2011 2/1/2012631,854 (410,705) 221,149 (221,149) 0 462,567 (462,567) - - 2011 2012 2/1/2013 545,000 1.85% 560,265 1,105,265 (196,093) 909,172 530,000 1.35% 410,158 940,158 1.20% 1.35% -0.15% 30,9852012 2013 2/1/2014 550,000 2.05% 550,183 1,100,183 (192,564) 907,619 535,000 1.45% 403,003 938,003 1.33% 1.45% -0.12% 30,3842013 2014 2/1/2015 560,000 2.35% 538,908 1,098,908 (188,618) 910,290 545,000 1.55% 395,245 940,245 1.53% 1.55% -0.02% 29,9552014 2015 2/1/2016 565,000 2.70% 525,748 1,090,748 (184,012) 906,736 550,000 1.85% 386,798 936,798 1.76% 1.85% -0.09% 30,0622015 2016 2/1/2017 575,000 2.95% 510,493 1,085,493 (178,672) 906,820 560,000 2.15% 376,623 936,623 1.92% 2.15% -0.23% 29,8022016 2017 2/1/2018 590,000 3.15% 493,530 1,083,530 (172,736) 910,795 575,000 2.35% 364,583 939,583 2.05% 2.35% -0.30% 28,78820172018 2/1/2019 600,000 3.40% 474,945 1,074,945 (166,231) 908,714 590,000 2.60% 351,070 941,070 2.21% 2.60% -0.39% 32,3562018 2019 2/1/2020 615,000 3.60% 454,545 1,069,545 (159,091) 910,454 605,000 2.80% 335,730 940,730 2.34% 2.80% -0.46% 30,2762019 2020 2/1/2021 625,000 3.85% 432,405 1,057,405 (151,342) 906,063 620,000 2.95% 318,790 938,790 2.50% 2.95% -0.45% 32,7272020 2021 2/1/2022 645,000 4.05% 408,343 1,053,343 (142,920) 910,423 640,000 3.10% 300,500 940,500 2.63% 3.10% -0.47% 30,0772021 2022 2/1/2023 660,000 4.25% 382,220 1,042,220 (133,777) 908,443 660,000 3.25% 280,660 940,660 2.76% 3.25% -0.49% 32,2172022 2023 2/1/2024 680,000 4.45% 354,170 1,034,170 (123,960) 910,211 680,000 3.35% 259,210 939,210 2.89% 3.35% -0.46% 29,0002023 2024 2/1/2025 700,000 4.65% 323,910 1,023,910 (113,369) 910,542 700,000 3.40% 236,430 936,430 3.02% 3.40% -0.38% 25,8892024 2025 2/1/2026 720,000 4.85% 291,360 1,011,360 (101,976) 909,384 725,000 3.50% 212,630 937,630 3.15% 3.50% -0.35% 28,2462025 2026 2/1/2027 740,000 5.00% 256,440 996,440 (89,754) 906,686 750,000 3.60% 187,255 937,255 3.25% 3.60% -0.35% 30,5692026 2027 2/1/2028 765,000 5.10% 219,440 984,440 (76,804) 907,636 780,000 3.65% 160,255 940,255 3.32% 3.65% -0.34% 32,6192027 2028 2/1/2029 790,000 5.20% 180,425 970,425 (63,149) 907,276 805,000 3.75% 131,785 936,785 3.38% 3.75% -0.37% 29,5092028 2029 2/1/2030 820,000 5.35% 139,345 959,345 (48,771) 910,574 840,000 3.80% 101,598 941,598 3.48% 3.80% -0.32% 31,0232029 2030 2/1/2031 845,000 5.50% 95,475 940,475 (33,416) 907,059 870,000 3.90% 69,678 939,678 3.58% 3.90% -0.33% 32,6192030 2031 2/1/2032 875,000 5.60% 49,000 924,000 (17,150) 906,850 905,000 3.95% 35,748 940,748 3.64% 3.95% -0.31% 33,89813,465,000 7,873,002 (410,705) 20,927,297 (2,755,551) 18,171,746 13,465,000 5,780,312 (462,567) 18,782,745 610,999422,5841Effective Taxable Rate is equal to the taxable rate less 35.00%.PV Savings =Proposed Taxable Build America BondsProposed Tax-Exempt BondsComparisonBond InformationTax ExemptTaxablePrepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.10/29/2010Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9) Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance Page 7
City of St. Louis Park, MNBuild America Bond ComparisonAssumes Current Market Rates ("AAA") + 35 bpOption 3 - $13,000,000 Net ProceedsPar Amount of Bonds 13,675,000 Par Amount of Bonds 13,675,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Reoffering Premium (Discount)Reoffering Premium (Discount)- 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Equity Contribution (Discount/COI over 2% of Par)- Total Sources 13,675,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Sources 13,675,000 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) 136,750 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250%) 170,938 Costs of Issuance 65,000 Costs of Issuance 85,000 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fd 469,855 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 417,197 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 13,000,000 Dated Date 12/15/2010 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 13,000,000 Rounding Amount 3,395 1st Int Pmt 8/1/2011 Rounding Amount 1,866 Total Uses 13,675,000 1st Prin Pmt 2/1/2013 Total Uses 13,675,000 Call Date:2/1/2018Call Date: 2/1/2018Average Coupon:4.6840%Average Coupon: 3.4060%Effective Rate:3.0446%AnnualPeriod35.00%Effective TaxSavingsLevy Collect EndingCap Total FederalNetCapNetTaxable Exempt Annual Post-Year Year Date Principal Rate Interest Interest P & I RebateP & IPrincipal Rate Interest InterestP & IRate1Rate Spread Rebate2009 2010 12/15/2010- - - - - 2010 2011 2/1/2012641,841 (417,197) 224,644 (224,644) (0) 469,855 (469,855) - - 2011 2012 2/1/2013 555,000 1.85% 569,120 1,124,120 (199,192) 924,928 535,000 1.35% 416,620 951,620 1.20% 1.35% -0.15% 26,6922012 2013 2/1/2014 560,000 2.05% 558,853 1,118,853 (195,598) 923,254 545,000 1.45% 409,398 954,398 1.33% 1.45% -0.12% 31,1432013 2014 2/1/2015 565,000 2.35% 547,373 1,112,373 (191,580) 920,792 550,000 1.55% 401,495 951,495 1.53% 1.55% -0.02% 30,7032014 2015 2/1/2016 575,000 2.70% 534,095 1,109,095 (186,933) 922,162 560,000 1.85% 392,970 952,970 1.76% 1.85% -0.09% 30,8082015 2016 2/1/2017 585,000 2.95% 518,570 1,103,570 (181,500) 922,071 570,000 2.15% 382,610 952,610 1.92% 2.15% -0.23% 30,5402016 2017 2/1/2018 595,000 3.15% 501,313 1,096,313 (175,459) 920,853 585,000 2.35% 370,355 955,355 2.05% 2.35% -0.30% 34,50220172018 2/1/2019 610,000 3.40% 482,570 1,092,570 (168,900) 923,671 595,000 2.60% 356,608 951,608 2.21% 2.60% -0.39% 27,9372018 2019 2/1/2020 620,000 3.60% 461,830 1,081,830 (161,641) 920,190 615,000 2.80% 341,138 956,138 2.34% 2.80% -0.46% 35,9482019 2020 2/1/2021 635,000 3.85% 439,510 1,074,510 (153,829) 920,682 630,000 2.95% 323,918 953,918 2.50% 2.95% -0.45% 33,2362020 2021 2/1/2022 655,000 4.05% 415,063 1,070,063 (145,272) 924,791 650,000 3.10% 305,333 955,333 2.63% 3.10% -0.47% 30,5422021 2022 2/1/2023 670,000 4.25% 388,535 1,058,535 (135,987) 922,548 670,000 3.25% 285,183 955,183 2.76% 3.25% -0.49% 32,6352022 2023 2/1/2024 690,000 4.45% 360,060 1,050,060 (126,021) 924,039 690,000 3.35% 263,408 953,408 2.89% 3.35% -0.46% 29,3692023 2024 2/1/2025 710,000 4.65% 329,355 1,039,355 (115,274) 924,081 715,000 3.40% 240,293 955,293 3.02% 3.40% -0.38% 31,2122024 2025 2/1/2026 730,000 4.85% 296,340 1,026,340 (103,719) 922,621 740,000 3.50% 215,983 955,983 3.15% 3.50% -0.35% 33,3622025 2026 2/1/2027 755,000 5.00% 260,935 1,015,935 (91,327) 924,608 765,000 3.60% 190,083 955,083 3.25% 3.60% -0.35% 30,4752026 2027 2/1/2028 780,000 5.10% 223,185 1,003,185 (78,115) 925,070 790,000 3.65% 162,543 952,543 3.32% 3.65% -0.34% 27,4722027 2028 2/1/2029 805,000 5.20% 183,405 988,405 (64,192) 924,213 820,000 3.75% 133,708 953,708 3.38% 3.75% -0.37% 29,4942028 2029 2/1/2030 830,000 5.35% 141,545 971,545 (49,541) 922,004 850,000 3.80% 102,958 952,958 3.48% 3.80% -0.32% 30,9532029 2030 2/1/2031 860,000 5.50% 97,140 957,140 (33,999) 923,141 885,000 3.90% 70,658 955,658 3.58% 3.90% -0.33% 32,5172030 2031 2/1/2032 890,000 5.60% 49,840 939,840 (17,444) 922,396 915,000 3.95% 36,143 951,143 3.64% 3.95% -0.31% 28,74713,675,000 8,000,476 (417,197) 21,258,279 (2,800,167) 18,458,113 13,675,000 5,871,252 (469,855) 19,076,398 618,285428,4981Effective Taxable Rate is equal to the taxable rate less 35.00%.Tax ExemptTaxablePV Savings =Proposed Taxable Build America BondsProposed Tax-Exempt BondsComparisonBond InformationPrepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.10/29/2010Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 9) Subject: Update on Fire Station and Louisiana Court Bond Issuance Page 8
Meeting Date: November 8, 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:
Update on Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is being provided for informational purposes. Please let staff know of any questions or
comments you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
On Monday, November 29 at 6:30 PM the City Council and School Board are scheduled to have a
joint meeting. As is customary, the Mayor and City Manager recently met with the School Board
Chair and Superintendent to discuss the make-up of the agenda. Based on the outcome of the City
Councils discussion on freight rail at its October 25 Study Session, the Mayor and City Manager
proposed that the joint meeting be devoted to the freight rail studies the County is undertaking.
The School Board Chair and Superintendent agreed.
Based on the meeting with the SLP school representatives the attached agenda has been developed.
The School Board Chair and Superintendent have signed off on the proposed agenda.
The meeting is proposed to be up to three hours long and conducted in the City Council
Chambers. Given the communities interest in the freight rail issue the joint meeting is proposed to
be broadcast live on our cable channel and web site.
The meeting is intended to allow the City Council and School Board to receive a presentation from
the County’s consultants on the results of the Kenilworth study and on the reassessment of the 2009
freight rail study the County undertook. Both of these studies were done based up the City’s request
last July and will be completed later this month. In addition to the presentation of the two studies,
it is also proposed that an update on the ongoing MNS Study be provided as well. Time is also
being set aside for the Council and School Board to have a dialogue around the freight rail issue.
Bridget Gothberg will be facilitating the meeting
This meeting is not designed or intended to serve as a public hearing or community forum on the
freight rail issue. Rather, its intended outcome is to fully apprise the Council and School Board on
the freight rail matter and allow the two parties to have a productive conversation around this issue
such that when community input is invited, both parties will prepared to receive it.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Update on Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Agenda
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Joint Meeting/Learning Session
St. Louis Park City Council and School Board
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Outcomes:
• To continue to develop a high performing partnership
• To exchange updates
• To gain a mutual understanding on freight rail studies being conducted
by Hennepin County.
• Determine Next Steps
1. Introductions and Remarks from the Mayor and School Board Chair
(5 minutes)
2. Meeting/Learning Session Ground Rules (5minutes)
3. Broad Overview of Freight Rail Studies (Kevin Locke, 5 minutes)
4. Presentation of two freight rail studies recently completed by
Hennepin County (Hennepin County - 60 minutes)
a. Kenilworth Corridor/RL Banks Study
b. Reassessment of 2009 Outstate Options
5. Update on ongoing MNS Freight Rail Study (Hennepin County - 30
minutes)
6. Dialogue between City Council and School Board members (60
minutes)
7. Next Steps (15 minutes)
8. Adjournment by 9:30 p.m.
Study Session Meeting of November 8, 2010 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Update on Agenda for Joint City Council/School Board Meeting
Page 3