HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/06/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JUNE 15, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:45 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss with the City Attorney
litigation with Pawn America Minnesota LLC – Westwood Room
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MEETING – Westwood Room
Discussion Items
1. 7:00 p.m. 2008 Annual Audit
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Nordic Ware Donation (Lilac Park & Beehive)
2b. 2008 Annual Audit
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of June 1, 2009
3b. Special Study Session Minutes of June 1, 2009
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the
Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
Meeting of June 15, 2009
City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Project Report – 36th Street Streetscape – Project 2008-2600
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting report, establishing and
ordering Improvement Project No. 2008-2600, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids.
8b. Benilde-St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
Recommended Action:
• Motion to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution 09-011.
• Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for
Athletic Facility Improvements at 2501 Highway 100 South.
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of June 15, 2009
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Entering Into a Master Partnership Agreement
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
4b. Motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $631,912.26 for the 2009 MSA Street
Improvement Project – Project No. 2009-1100.
4c. Motion to waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance to create Special Service District
No. 6 and approve the summary ordinance for publication and Motion to approve
Resolution imposing a service charge for Special Service District No. 6.
4d. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Joint
and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment to be
administered by Hennepin County.
4e. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to
the United States Department of Energy for 2009 Recovery Act – Energy & Efficiency
Conversation Block Grant – Formula Grants (EECBG) and for the city to administer the
grant funding and act as the fiscal agent for the formula funds.
4f. Motion to Adopt a Resolution accepting a donation from Nordic Ware in the amount of
$20,000 for relocating the beehive and improvements to Lilac Park.
4g. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes April 15, 2009.
4h. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes May 13, 2009.
4i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Closed Executive Session
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: CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
TITLE:
Closed Door/Executive Session to discuss with the City Attorney ongoing litigation with Pawn
America
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Attorney Tom Scott will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive
Session on the litigation with Pawn America.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
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:
Presentation of 2008 Annual Audit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. Council is asked to provide any comments or questions it might
have regarding the CAFR/Audit.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with the manner in which staff is managing the City’s finances and
recording and presenting financial transaction data?
BACKGROUND:
This presentation will allow Steve McDonald from Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP (the City’s auditor) to
discuss the audit, management report, and financial highlights with the City Council. The CAFR
has not been finalized, so some figures may still need to be cross-checked. The final CAFR will be
submitted to the Office of State Auditor by June 30 and a final copy will be distributed to the City
Council at that time.
The City is required to have an independent audit performed annually. The auditors work for the
City Council, not the city management team. By state statute they are required to present their
findings within 30 days of completion of the audit.
The audit was completed more cleanly this year with implementation of most of the
recommendations from last year’s audit particularly in the area of internal controls. The audit
opinion is “unqualified”, which means that Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP believe the financial
statements, as presented by city staff, fairly represent the city’s financial condition as of December
31, 2008. There were no findings that reach the level of a material weakness in our financial
procedures.
Mr. McDonald will discuss financial highlights in conjunction with his management report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This report shows the City of St. Louis Park remains in strong financial condition.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: 2008 Annual Audit Management Letter
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MANAGEMENT LETTER
YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2008
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 2
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Management, Honorable Mayor, and Council
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the
aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2008
and have issued our report thereon dated Draft Approval Date, 2009. Professional standards require that we provide you with the
following information related to our audit.
Our Responsibility under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of America
As stated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to express opinions about
whether the financial statements, prepared by management with your oversight are fairly presented, in all material respects, in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements
does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities.
Our responsibility is to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial statements
are free of material misstatement. As part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City. Such considerations were
solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. We
are responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your
responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures specifically to
identify such matters.
Significant Audit Findings
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would not necessarily
identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. However, as discussed
below, we identified a deficiency in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be a significant deficiency.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record,
process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than
a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented
or detected by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies to be significant deficiencies in internal
control over financial reporting.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 3
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 2
2008-1 Reconciliation of Deposits
Condition: During our audit, we reviewed procedures over the billing and collection of receipts
at the Recreation Center. We noted no clear reconciliation of the receipts posted to
the point of sale system to the actual deposit prior to taking to the bank.
Criteria: Procedures should include formal reconciliation prior to making the bank deposit to
ensure all amounts are posted correctly.
Cause: No formal documented procedures exist for reconciling the deposit to the point of
sale system.
Effect: During the audit, we examined two deposits as sample walkthroughs of the
procedures. In each case, the documentation of the daily activity to the daily deposit
was not on hand at the Recreation Center. Eventually the deposit is reconciled at
City Hall, however the procedure should take place prior to making the deposit and
retained for future records.
Recommendation: We recommend the City establish reconciliation procedures of the daily deposit to
the amounts posted that include a signature of the person reconciling to ensure items
have been posted accurately.
Management Response:
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that result in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal
control. We do not believe the deficiency above constitutes a material weakness.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 4
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 3
Summary of Prior Year Findings
2007-1 Preparation of Financial Statements
Condition: As in prior years, we were requested to draft the audited financial statements and
related footnote disclosures as part of our regular audit services. Recent auditing
standards require auditors to communicate this situation to the Council as an internal
control deficiency. Ultimately, it is management’s responsibility to provide for the
preparation of your statements and footnotes, and the responsibility of the auditor to
determine the fairness of presentation of those statements. It is our responsibility to
inform you that this deficiency could result in a material misstatement to the
financial statements that could have been prevented or detected by your
management. Essentially, the auditors cannot be part of your internal control
process.
Criteria: Internal controls should be in place to provide reasonable assurance over financial
reporting.
Current Year Status: The finding has been eliminated. The City has completed the disclosure checklist to
ensure all necessary disclosures have been included and matched their financial
software to the numbers reported in the financial statements.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 5
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 4
2007-2 Limited segregation of duties over Cash Disbursements, Cash Receipts and Payroll
Condition: During our audit we reviewed procedures over cash disbursements, cash receipts,
and payroll and found the City to have limited segregation of duties related to these
procedures.
Criteria: There are four general categories of duties: authorization, custody, record keeping
and reconciliation. In an ideal system, different employees perform each of these
four major functions. In other words, no one person has control of two or more of
these responsibilities.
Current Year Status: The City has eliminated the finding. The following controls were implemented
during the year:
Cash Disbursements – The City has added a new procedure to strengthen the control
over custody of the blank check stock. The Accounts Payable Clerk no longer has
access to the check stock. The blank checks are kept in a locked cabinet, and the
clerk must request a series of check numbers from either the Assistant Finance
Director or one of the two Accountants. A log, as shown on the next page, is used to
keep a record of each time blank checks are released. The log serves the following
purposes:
Maintains that check numbers are being issued in consecutive order to
eliminate the concern that any unauthorized checks have been printed.
Ensures that a minimum of two employees are involved in releasing
blank checks by requiring the initials of each.
Puts a control in place to monitor the set-up of new vendors, as another
employee is required to initial the log indicating that the checks have
been reviewed after printing.
Payroll - A similar process to that described above has been added for the Payroll
Clerk to improve the control over custody of blank check stock. Blank checks are
kept in a locked cabinet, and the clerk must request a series of check numbers from
either the Human Resources Coordinator or one of the two Accountants. A log, as
shown on the next page, is used to keep a record of each time blank checks are
released.
Cash Receipts - To address this internal control risk, the City has changed the back-
up person for cash receipts. The Sr. Account Clerk now has the back-up role in
place of the Accounts Payable Clerk.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 5
2007-3 Limited segregation of duties relating to offsite material transactions.
Condition: During our audit we reviewed procedures over the billing and collection of receipts
at the Recreation Center. We noted procedures for scheduling, billing and collecting
ice time and building rental has limited segregation of duties. In addition, there are
no procedures for tracking concession inventory.
Criteria: As previously noted, there are four general categories of duties: authorization,
custody, record keeping and reconciliation. In an ideal system, different employees
perform each of these four major functions. In other words, no one person has
control of two or more of these responsibilities.
Current Year Status: We again reviewed procedures with the Recreation Center and have focused the
finding as noted in finding 2008-1.
Compliance
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed
tests of compliance with certain provisions of Minnesota statutes. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an
opinion on compliance with such provisions. We noted no instances of noncompliance with Minnesota statutes that are required
to be reported.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We performed the audit according to the planned scope and timing previously communicated to you.
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used
by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As discussed in Note X to the financial statements, the City
adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Employers for
Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions for the year ended December 31, 2008. We noted no transaction entered into by
the governmental unit during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. There are no significant
transactions that have been recognized in the financial statements in a different period than when the transaction occurred.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s
knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumption about future events. Certain accounting estimates are
particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events
affecting them may differ significantly from those expected.
Management’s estimate of capital asset basis is based on estimated useful lives of the assets. The estimate of historical cost is
based on engineers’ estimates and deflated current value. We evaluated key factors and assumptions used to develop these
accounting estimates in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
Management’s estimate of the market value of investments was based on market conditions at December 31, 2008. We evaluated
the estimation and assumptions to develop the estimates and determined them reasonable in relation to the financial statements
taken as a whole.
The disclosures in the financial statements are neutral, consistent, and clear. Certain financial statement disclosures are
particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 7
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 6
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those
that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such
misstatements. In addition, we made audit entries for the following reasons:
To correct double posting of accruals
To record additional accounts receivable and correct original entries to accounts receivable
To reclassify prior period adjustments
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or
auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s
report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated
Draft Approval Date, 2009.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to
obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the
governmental unit’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those
statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all
the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with
management each year prior to retention as the governmental unit’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal
course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 8
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 7
Other Matters
The following are areas that came to our attention during the audit that we feel should be reviewed:
Financial Position and Results of Operations
Our principal observations and recommendations are summarized on the following pages. These recommendations resulted
from our observations made in connection with our audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
General Fund
The General fund is used to account for resources traditionally associated with government, which are not required legally or
by sound financial management to be accounted for in another fund.
The General fund balance increased $1,612,694 from 2007. The total fund balance is $11,726,600 which is 49.1 percent of
the 2009 budgeted expenditures. We recommend the fund balance be maintained at a level sufficient to fund operations
until the major revenue sources are received in June. We feel a reserve of approximately 40 to 50 percent of planned
expenditures and transfers out is adequate to meet working capital and small emergency needs. At the current level, the fund
balance is within the range of what is generally recommended as a minimum.
The Office of the State Auditor (the OSA) has issued a Statement of Position relating to fund balance stating “a local
government should identify fund balance separately between reserved and unreserved fund balance. The local government
may assign and report some or all of the fund balance as designated and undesignated.” We recommend local governments
adopt a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund balance that should be maintained in the general and special revenue
funds. This helps address citizen concerns as to the use of fund balance and tax levels.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 9
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 8
Purposes and Benefits of an Adequate Fund Balance
Expenditures are incurred somewhat evenly throughout the year. However, currently, property tax and state aid
revenues are not received until the second half of the year. An adequate fund balance will provide the cash flow
required to finance the General fund expenditures until these revenue sources are received.
The City is vulnerable to legislative actions at the State and Federal level. The State eliminated HACA aid with the
2001 legislative session and imposed reductions of market value credit aid and local government aid for some cities.
Levy limits have also been implemented for municipalities in past legislative sessions. An adequate fund balance will
provide a temporary buffer against those aid adjustments and levy limits.
Expenditures not anticipated at the time the annual budget was adopted may need immediate Council action. These
would include capital outlay replacement, lawsuits and other items. An adequate fund balance will provide the financing
needed for such expenditures.
A strong fund balance will assist the City in obtaining, maintaining or improving its bond rating. The result will be
better interest rates in future bond sales.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 10
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 9
A table summarizing the General fund balance in relation to budget follows:
Fund General
Balance Budget Fund
Year December 31 Year Budget
2004 8,195,292$ 2005 20,604,950$ 39.8 %
2005 8,740,093 2006 21,697,931 40.3
2006 9,952,115 2007 21,866,416 45.5
2007 10,113,906 2008 22,907,928 44.2
2008 11,726,600 2009 23,893,279 49.1
Budget
Balance to
of Fund
Percent
General Fund Balance as Compared to Budget
49.1%
39.8%
40.3%45.5%44.2%
$20,604,950 $21,697,931 $21,866,416 $22,907,928
$23,893,279
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Actual Fund Balance Budget
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 11
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 10
A summary of General fund revenue and expenditures compared to budget and the prior year follows:
Variance with
Final Budget -
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues 20,352,234$ 20,352,234$ 21,164,037$ 811,803$
Expenditures 22,907,928 22,907,928 22,109,664 798,264
Deficiency of revenues
under expenditures (2,555,694) (2,555,694) (945,627) 1,610,067
Other financing sources
Transfers in 2,555,694 2,555,694 2,558,321 2,627
Net change in fund balances - - 1,612,694 1,612,694
Fund balances, January 1 10,113,906 10,113,906 10,113,906 -
Fund balances, December 31 10,113,906$ 10,113,906$ 11,726,600$ 1,612,694$
Budgeted Amounts
In total, revenue sources provided a favorable variance when compared to budget. The sources of revenue that fell short
of budgeted expectations were property taxes, intergovernmental, and charges for services, which had variances of
$240,225, $437,873, and $8,350, respectively. Licenses and permits had a positive variance of $1,408,763 more than
making up for the shortfall from the other sources.
All functions of expenditures had favorable actual results when compared with budget. General government was $353
thousand under budget.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 12
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 11
A comparison of revenues for the last three years follows:
2006 2007 2008
Taxes 12,067,368$ 12,332,531$ 13,235,208$ 55.8 %
Licenses and permits 2,926,785 2,940,449 4,066,478 17.1
Intergovernmental 2,558,652 2,283,250 1,903,238 8.0
Charges of services 1,035,008 1,044,320 1,131,625 4.8
Fines and forfeits 322,558 276,693 324,512 1.4
Special assessments 1,356 2,468 - -
Interest on investments 303,165 526,336 358,753 1.5
Miscellaneous 131,857 142,814 144,223 0.6
Transfers in 2,609,819 2,659,532 2,558,321 10.8
Total revenues 21,956,568$ 22,208,393$ 23,722,358$ 100.0 %
Source Total
Percent of
Revenues and Transfers
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2006 2007 2008
Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Other
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 13
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 12
A comparison of expenditures for the last three years follows:
2006 2007 2008
General government 5,980,358$ 6,630,661$ 6,535,398$ 29.5 %
Public safety 10,816,723 10,797,256 11,643,136 52.7
Public works 3,924,981 3,826,855 3,928,477 17.8
General services 22,484 6,830 2,653 -
Transfers out - 785,000 - -
Total expenditures and transfers 20,744,546$ 22,046,602$ 22,109,664$ 100.0 %
Program Total
Percent of
Expenditures and Transfers
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2006 2007 2008
General government Public safety Public works General services Transfers out
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 14
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 13
Special Revenue Funds
Special revenue funds are used to account for revenue derived from specific taxes or other earmarked revenue sources. They
are usually required by Minnesota statute or local ordinance to finance particular functions or activities of government. A
summary of fund balances follows:
Increase
2008 2007 (Decrease)
Major
Parks and Recreation 497,263$ 630,327$ (133,064)$
Housing Rehabilitation 1,729,807 2,402,328 (672,521)
Nonmajor
Cable Television 1,632,217 1,560,836 71,381
Community Development (6,568) (2,645) (3,923)
Special Service District #1 138,852 138,095 757
Special Service District #2 7,851 1,406 6,445
Special Service District #3 52,780 74,068 (21,288)
Special Service District #4 48,239 14,169 34,070
Police and Fire Pensions 5,446,950 6,520,923 (1,073,973)
Total 9,547,391$ 11,339,507$ (1,792,116)$
Fund
December 31,
Fund Balance (deficits)
The reduction in the Police and Fire Pensions fund was a result of transferring $875,135 to the fire station project fund and
$334,000 to the General fund.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 15
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 14
Capital Projects Funds
The capital projects funds are used to account for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities other than those
financed by enterprise funds. Included in this group of funds and the fund balance of each at December 31 for 2008 and 2007
is as follows:
Increase
2008 2007 (Decrease)
Major
Permanent Improvement Revolving 8,620,404$ 8,597,370$ 23,034$
Street Capital Projects (3,343,441) (1,256,764) (2,086,677)
Development EDA 26,248,575 23,559,733 2,688,842
Redevelopment District 9,992,626 7,720,651 2,271,975
Nonmajor
Municipal Building 472,810 636,385 (163,575)
Fire Station Bonds (627) - (627)
Park Improvement 2,246,952 860,916 1,386,036
Louisiana Court Capital Project - 1,117 (1,117)
Pavement Management 1,657,652 1,678,262 (20,610)
Total 45,894,951$ 41,797,670$ 4,097,281$
December 31,
Fund Balances (deficits)
Fund
It appears that most of the capital project funds have sufficient fund balances for working capital except for the Street Capital
Projects fund. The City annually reviews capital projects and closes funds when associated projects have been completed.
This is a good monitoring process that ensures status is evaluated and should be continued.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 16
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 15
Debt Service Funds
Debt service funds are a type of governmental fund to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of interest
and principal on debt (other than enterprise fund debt).
Debt service funds may have one or a combination of the following revenue sources pledged to retire debt as follows:
Property taxes - Primarily for general City benefit projects such as parks and municipal buildings. Property taxes
may also be used to fund special assessment bonds which are not fully assessed.
Tax increments - Pledged exclusively for tax increment/economic development districts.
Capitalized interest portion of bond proceeds - After the sale of bonds, the project may not produce revenue (tax
increments or special assessments) for a period of one to two years. Bonds are issued with this timing difference
considered in the form of capitalized interest.
Special assessments - Charges to benefited properties for various improvements.
In addition to the above pledged assets, other funding sources may be received by Debt Service funds as follows:
Residual project proceeds from the related capital projects fund
Investment earnings
State or federal grants
Transfers from other funds
A comparison of the assets of each fund and the remaining bonds outstanding at year end are as follows:
Final
Total Total Remaining Maturity
Fund Cash Assets Bonds Date
3880 Hoigaard's 293,083$ 294,912$ -$ Matured
3890 G.O. Tax Increment Bond, 2008B 480,316 480,316 5,490,000 02/01/24
3870 G.O. Improvements Bond, 2005A 485,584 487,586 3,235,000 02/01/16
3860 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bond, 2005B 1,043,375 1,049,885 825,000 02/01/09
3850 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bond, 2004 1,045,484 1,052,008 6,035,000 02/01/18
3450 G.O. Improvements Bond, 2003 472,972 474,855 2,640,000 02/01/13
3840 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bond, 2002A 101,389 102,019 1,260,000 09/01/09
3830 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bond, 2001A 654,468 658,552 2,385,000 02/01/11
3600 G.O. Improvement Bond, 2000 - Reserve 325,000 325,000 - Matured
3610 G.O. Improvement Bond, 2000 188,408 4,153,408 3,965,000 02/01/30
3400 G.O. Improvement Bond, 1999 321,467 322,787 875,000 02/01/11
Total 5,411,546$ 9,401,328$ 26,710,000$
December 31, 2008
Debt Description
The City should review potential uses of remaining net assets in funds that have completed their purpose. TIF funds need to
be used for a purpose consistent with the TIF plan and remaining resources in G.O. Improvement bonds can be used for
whatever the council deems appropriate.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 17
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 16
Enterprise Funds
The activities of the Enterprise funds include the municipal water utility, sewer utility, refuse, storm water utility and
wireless operations.
Water Utility Fund
A comparison of the past three year’s Water Utility fund operations is as follows:
Amount Amount Amount
Operating revenues 2,913,692$ 100.0 % 3,460,541$ 100.0 % 3,584,384$ 100.0 %
Operating expenses 2,845,614 97.7 3,228,875 93.3 3,283,417 91.6
Operating income 68,078 2.3 231,666 6.7 300,967 8.4
Nonoperating revenues 93,992 3.2 46,841 1.4 (26,326) (0.7)
Transfers (506,965) (17.8) (538,882) (16.7) (533,656) (16.3)
Change in net assets (344,895)$ (12.3) % (260,375)$ (8.6) % (259,015)$ (8.6) %
Cash and temporary
investments 867,635$ 2,109,647$ 4,640,355$
Bonds payable -$ 2,440,000$ 6,425,000$
2006 2007 2008
Percent of
Revenues
Percent of
Revenues
Percent of
Revenues
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2006 2007 2008
Operating revenues Operating expenses Nonoperating revenues
Change in net assets Cash and temporary investments Bonds payable
The cash balance significantly increased over the prior year due to unspent bond proceeds of approximately 2.5 million.
This would leave the operating cash basically unchanged compared to the prior year.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 18
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 17
Sewer Utility Fund
A comparison of the past three year’s Sewer Utility fund operations is as follows:
Amount Amount Amount
Operating revenues 4,584,167$ 100.0 % 4,764,952$ 100.0 % 4,482,087$ 100.0 %
Operating expenses 4,255,400 92.8 4,199,659 88.1 4,485,386 100.1
Operating income (loss) 328,767 7.2 565,293 11.9 (3,299) (0.1)
Nonoperating revenues 105,932 2.3 221,981 4.7 101,604 2.3
Transfers (746,060) (17.5) (790,849) (18.8) (741,334) (16.5)
Change in net assets (311,361)$ (8.0) % (3,575)$ (2.2) % (643,029)$ (14.3) %
Cash and temporary
investments 2,832,423$ 2,581,105$ 2,083,067$
2006 2007 2008
Percent of
Revenues
Percent of Percent of
Revenues Revenues
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2006 2007 2008
Operating revenues Operating expenses Nonoperating revenues
Change in net assets Cash and temporary investments
The current cash balance decreased when compared with the prior year due to transfers to other funds. It is important to
keep an updated cash flow projection to ensure rates are sufficient to cover increasing costs.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 19
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 18
Refuse Fund
A comparison of the past three year’s Refuse fund operations is as follows:
Amount Amount Amount
Operating revenues 2,124,203$ 100.0 % 2,395,469$ 100.0 % 2,347,995$ 100.0 %
Operating expenses 2,029,302 95.5 2,019,595 84.3 2,135,677 91.0
Operating income 94,901 4.5 375,874 15.7 212,318 9.0
Nonoperating revenues 184,023 8.7 215,984 9.0 181,046 7.7
Transfers (335,617) (16.5) (348,866) (17.3) (353,299) (16.5)
Change in net assets (56,693)$ (3.3) % 242,992$ 7.4 % 40,065$ 0.2 %
Cash and temporary
investments 2,018,712$ 2,191,412$ 2,244,381$
2006 2007 2008
Percent of
Revenues
Percent of Percent of
Revenues Revenues
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
2006 2007 2008
Operating revenues Operating expenses Nonoperating revenues
Change in net assets Cash and temporary investments
The current cash balance increased slightly when compared with the prior year. It is important to keep an updated cash
flow projection to ensure rates are sufficient to cover increasing costs.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 20
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 19
Storm Water Utility Fund
A comparison of the past three year’s Storm Water Utility fund operations is as follows:
Amount Amount Amount
Operating revenues 1,169,915$ 100.0 % 1,470,529$ 100.0 % 1,529,180$ 100.0 %
Operating expenses 904,916 77.3 942,746 64.1 1,017,093 66.5
Operating income 264,999 22.7 527,783 35.9 512,087 33.5
Nonoperating
revenues 245,002 20.9 49,032 3.3 732,635 47.9
Transfers (335,118) (37.0) (317,694) (33.7)(328,438) (32.3)
Change in net assets 174,883$ 6.6 % 259,121$ 5.5 % 916,284$ 49.1 %
Cash and temporary
investments 609,679$ 924,907$ 529,059$
Bonds payable 2,365,000$ 3,395,000$ 3,145,000$
2006 2007 2008
Percent of
Revenues
Percent of Percent of
Revenues Revenues
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2006 2007 2008
Operating revenues Operating expenses Nonoperating
Change in net assets Cash and temporary investments Bonds payable
The current cash balance decreased when compared with the prior year due to internal financing of project costs. It is
important to keep an updated cash flow projection to ensure rates are sufficient to cover increasing costs.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 21
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 20
Wireless Fund
A summary of the past three year’s Wireless fund operations are as follows:
Amount Amount Amount
Operating revenues 41,057$ 100.0 % 68,606$ 100.0 % 32,592$ 100.0 %
Operating expenses 397,697 968.6 1,151,751 1678.8 315,664 968.5
Operating loss (356,640) (868.6) (1,083,145) (1578.8) (283,072) (868.5)
Nonoperating
revenues (expenses)(4,986) (12.1)353 0.5 1,059,114 3249.6
Change in net assets (361,626)$ (880.7) % (1,082,792)$ (1578.3) % 776,042$ 2381.1 %
Cash and temporary
investments -$ -$ 781,437$
2006
Percent
of Sales of Sales of Sales
2007 2008
Percent Percent
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
2006 2007 2008
Operating revenues Operating expenses
Nonoperating revenues (expenses)Change in net assets
Cash and temporary investments
In 2008, the City received a settlement of $1,040,384 from the contractor for the wireless project. The City is in the
process of removing the wireless towers and closing out the fund.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 22
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 21
Ratio Analysis
The following captures a few ratios from the City’s financial statements that give some additional information for trend and peer
group analysis. The peer group average is derived from information available on the website of the Office of the State Auditor.
The peer group average represented below consists of Minnesota cities of the 2nd class (population 20,000 to 100,000). The
majority of these ratios facilitate the use of economic resources focus and accrual basis of accounting at the government-wide
level. A combination of liquidity (ability to pay its most immediate obligations), solvency (ability to pay its long-term
obligations), funding (comparison of financial amounts and economic indicators to measure changes in financial capacity over
time) and common-size (comparison of financial data with other cities regardless of size) ratios are shown below.
Calculation Source 2005 2006 2007 2008
Debt to assets Total liabilities/total assets Government-wide 23% 20% 19% 21%
26% 24% 23% N/A
Debt service coverage Net cash provided by operations/ Enterprise funds 272% 192% 339% 199%
enterprise fund debt payments 202% 241% 247% N/A
Debt per capita Bonded debt/population Government-wide 872$ 723$ 708$ 769$
1,233$ 1,389$ 1,485$ N/A
Taxes per capita Tax revenues/population Government-wide 527$ 560$ 613$ 604$
339$ 381$ 408$ N/A
Capital assets % left to Net capital assets/Government-wide 68% 74% 66% 66%
depreciate - Governmental gross capital assets 66% 70% 69% N/A
Capital assets % left to Net capital assets/Government-wide 52% 51% 53% 53%
depreciate - Business-type gross capital assets 61% 65% 64% N/A
Represents the City of St. Louis Park
Peer Group ratio
Ratio
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 23
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 22
Debt-to-Assets Leverage Ratio (Solvency Ratio)
The debt-to-assets leverage ratio is a comparison of a city’s total liabilities to its total assets or the percentage of total assets that
are provided by creditors. It indicates the degree to which the City’s assets are financed through borrowings and other long-term
obligations (i.e. a ratio of 50 percent would indicate half of the assets are financing with outstanding debt).
23%
20%19%21%
26%
24%23%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
30%
32%
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Debt Service Coverage Ratio (Solvency Ratio)
The debt coverage ratio is a comparison of cash generated by operations to total debt service payments (principal and interest) of
enterprise funds. This ratio indicates if there are sufficient cash flows from operations to meet debt service obligations. Except
in cases where other nonoperating revenues (i.e. taxes, assessments, transfers from other funds, etc.) are used to fund debt service
payments, an acceptable ratio would be above 100 percent.
272%
192%
339%
199%
202%
241%247%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 24
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 23
Bonded Debt per Capita (Funding Ratio)
This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total bonded debt by the population of the city and represents the amount of
bonded debt obligation for each citizen of the City at the end of the year. The higher the amount, the more resources are needed
in the future to retire these obligations through taxes, assessments or user fees.
$872
$723 $708 $769
$1,233
$1,389 $1,485
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Taxes per Capita (Funding Ratio)
This dollar amount is arrived at by dividing the total tax revenues by the population of the city and represents the amount of taxes
for each citizen of the city for the year. The higher this amount is, the more reliant the City is on taxes to fund its operations. Of
the total taxes, 21 percent is related to tax increments or approximately $120 per capita.
$527
$560 $613
$604
$339
$381 $408
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
$650
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 25
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 24
Capital Assets Percentage (Common-size Ratio)
This percentage represents the percent of governmental or business-type capital assets that are left to be depreciated. The lower
this percentage, the older the city’s capital assets are and may need major repairs or replacements in the near future. A higher
percentage may indicate newer assets being constructed or purchased and may coincide with higher debt ratios or bonded debt
per capita.
Governmental Activities
68%
74%
66%
66%66%
70%
69%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
78%
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Business-type Activities
52%51%53%53%
61%
65%64%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
2005 2006 2007 2008
City ratio Peer group average
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 26
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 25
Future Statute and Accounting Standard Changes
The following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements have been issued and may have an impact on
future City financial statements:
2009 Levy Limits
During the 2008 legislative session, Minnesota legislators amended Statutes section 275.71 to enact levy limits for cities over
2,500 in population. This bill is in effect for taxes levied in 2008 through 2010. Annually the levy limit is multiplied by:
1. One plus the lesser of 3.9 percent or the percentage growth in the implicit price deflator.
2. One plus a percentage equal to 50 percent of the percentage increase in the number of households, if any, for the most
recent 12-month period for which data is available, and
3. One plus a percentage equal to 50 percent of the percentage increase in the taxable market value of the jurisdiction
due to new construction of class 3 property, as defined in section 273.13, subdivision 4, except for state-assessed
utility and railroad property, for the most recent year for which data is available.
In addition there are special levies that are currently allowed outside any levy limit. They are listed below:
Debt levies - includes bonds, most certificates of indebtedness and levies to pay the local share of bonds issued by
another political subdivision
Voter approved levy increases
To pay federal or state matching fund requirements for programs instituted after 2001
For costs to prepare for, or recovery from, natural disasters – upon approval by the commission of revenue
To pay amounts related to errors in levy certification in the previous year
To pay for property tax abatements
To pay increases in the employer share of PERA pension costs since 2001
To pay operating and maintenance costs of county jails to the extent that the cost is required by the Department of
Corrections Rules and Standards.
To pay for a lake improvement district
To repay a federal or state loan issued to help a local government pay the required local share of a federal or state
transportation or other capital project
To pay court administration costs during the period in which court costs were being transferred from the counties to
the state
To fund required police and firefighters relief funds, to the extent that the costs exceed costs in 2001
To fund a storm sewer improvement district
To fund an animal protection society
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 27
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 26
For counties, to pay for the increase in their share of health and human service costs caused by reductions in federal
health and human service grants effective after September 30, 2007
To fund increased costs of securing, maintaining, and demolishing foreclosed and abandoned housing in cities that
have a 2007 foreclosure rate over a certain percent
To fund lost traffic citation revenue and unreimbursed costs of redeployed traffic control agents due to the collapse of
the Interstate 35W bridge
To fund certain cost increases in police and firefighter costs
To recoup losses due to any un-allotment of city and county general purpose aids and credits
We recommend that the City review all of the options presented when calculating future years levies. There is further guidance
provided by League of Minnesota Cities on how to estimate the 2009 levy limit on their website: www.lmc.org.
The following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements have been issued and may have an impact on
future City financial statements:
GASB Statement No. 51 - Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets
This statement was issued in June 2007 and is effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2009.
The new standard characterizes an intangible asset as an asset that lacks physical substance, is nonfinancial in nature, and has an
initial useful life extending beyond a single reporting period. Examples of intangible assets include easements, computer
software, water rights, timber rights, patents, and trademarks.
This statement requires that intangible assets be classified as capital assets (except for those explicitly excluded from the scope of
the new standard, such as capital leases). Relevant authoritative guidance for capital assets should be applied to these intangible
assets. The statement provides additional guidance that specifically addresses the unique nature of intangible assets, including:
Requiring that an intangible asset be recognized in the statement of net assets only if it is considered identifiable
Establishing a specified-conditions approach to recognizing intangible assets that are internally generated (for
example, patents and copyrights)
Providing guidance on recognizing internally generated computer software
Establishing specific guidance for the amortization of intangible assets.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 28
City of St. Louis Park
Draft Approval Date, 2009
Page 27
GASB Statement No. 54 - Fund Balance
This statement was issued in March of 2009 and is effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2010. This new standard is
intended to improve the usefulness of information provided to financial report uses about fund balance by providing clearer, more
structured fund balance classifications, and clarifying the definitions of existing governmental fund types.
GASB No. 54 distinguishes fund balance between amounts that are considered non-spendable, such as fund balance associated
with inventories, and other amounts that are classified based on the relative strength of the constraints that control the purposes
for which specific amounts can be spent. The following classifications and definitions will be used:
Restricted - amounts constrained by external parties, constitutional provision, or enabling legislation
Committed - amounts constrained by a government using its highest level of decision-making authority
Assigned - amounts a government intends to use for a particular purpose
Unassigned - amounts that are not constrained at all will be reported in the general fund.
In addition to the classifications of fund balance, the standard clarified the definitions of individual governmental fund types, for
example, special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds.
* * * * *
This report is intended solely for the information and use of Council, management and the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor
and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Our audit would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on selected tests of the accounting
records and related data. The comments and recommendations in the report are purely constructive in nature, and should be read
in this context.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the items contained in this letter, please feel free to contact us at your
convenience. We wish to thank you for the continued opportunity to be of service and for the courtesy and cooperation extended
to us by your staff.
Draft Approval Date, 2009 ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota Certified Public Accountants
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2008 Annual Audit Page 29
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Nordic Ware Donation for Beehive Relocation and Improvements at Lilac Park.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, will be present to accept a donation in the amount of
$20,000 from David Dahlquist, Owner/President of Nordic Ware, for the beehive relocation project
and improvements to Lilac Park. The donation is proposed to be formally accepted by the City
Council as a consent item following the presentation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed use of the funds acceptable to the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
Nordic Ware is graciously donating $20,000 to the City of St. Louis. The donation is given with
restrictions that it be used for relocating the beehive and improvements to Lilac Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will assist in the relocation of the beehive and improvements to Lilac Park. Staff is
recommending that the City accept this donation.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The donation will assist us in preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 2b
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:
Presentation of 2008 Annual Audit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. Council is asked to provide any comments or questions it might
have regarding the CAFR/Audit.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with the manner in which staff is managing the City’s finances and
recording and presenting financial transaction data?
BACKGROUND:
This presentation will allow Steve McDonald from Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP (the City’s auditor) to
discuss the audit, management report, and financial highlights with the City Council. The CAFR
has not been finalized, so some figures may still need to be cross-checked. The final CAFR will be
submitted to the Office of State Auditor by June 30 and a final copy will be distributed to the City
Council at that time.
The City is required to have an independent audit performed annually. The auditors work for the
City Council, not the city management team. By state statute they are required to present their
findings within 30 days of completion of the audit.
The audit was completed more cleanly this year with implementation of most of the
recommendations from last year’s audit particularly in the area of internal controls. The audit
opinion is “unqualified”, which means that Abdo Eick & Meyers, LLP believe the financial
statements, as presented by city staff, fairly represent the city’s financial condition as of December
31, 2008. There were no findings that reach the level of a material weakness in our financial
procedures.
Mr. McDonald will discuss financial highlights in conjunction with his management report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This report shows the City of St. Louis Park remains in strong financial condition.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: 2008 Annual Audit Management Letter (See Special Study Session Report #1)
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 1, 2009
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke) and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Presentations
2a. Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Ellison discussed federal funding for the Southwest Transitway Project and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that was recently approved. He stated a High Priority
Project funding request was submitted for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Interchange Project;
and that he has also been working on securing funding for the traveling Holocaust
exhibition. Congressman Ellison indicated he currently serves on the financial services and
foreign affairs committees and asked for input on the implications to the City and its
residents from the recent financial institution failures.
Mr. Harmening stated the City has in place fairly conservative investment policies and has
not been impacted by the downturn in the market.
Congressman Ellison discussed the predatory lending bill and the credit cardholder’s bill of
rights. He indicated that Congress is currently debating health care reform. The
Congressioners will be hosting a health care forum on July 1st. He added that energy policy
will likely be on the agenda in the fall.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks to Congressman Ellison and his staff for
all their hard work on behalf of the City and its residents. He expressed thanks to Betty
Folliard, Minh Ta, Allison Bowdin, Darlynn Benjamin and Brian Elliott for their help on
community issues and transportation priorities. He thanked Congressman Ellison for the
support the City received in helping it resolve concerns around the soil vapors and added
home remediation systems were installed because of his assistance.
Mayor Jacobs presented a framed poster to Congressman Ellison on behalf of the City
Council. He stated the poster contains a series of art work drawn by local children and
adults through a project called “The 40 Unique Visions of the Developmental Assets
Important to St. Louis Park Youth.”
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes June 1, 2009
Congressman Ellison expressed his thanks and stated he would proudly and gratefully accept
the poster for display in his local office.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes May 18, 2009
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2373-09 amending Chapter 3
Section 3-101 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances concerning alcoholic
beverages and the showing of certain films; and approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 09-072 amending Exhibit C of Resolution 09-045 imposing
a Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5 located along Park Place
Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar Lake Road.
4c. Approve payment to School District #283 of $53,000 from Cable TV franchise fees
in 2009, which includes an operations grant of $35,000, an equipment grant of
$14,000 and $4,000 to support the Junior High video club
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 09-073 accepting this report, establishing and ordering
Improvement Project No. 2009-2101, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 09-074 authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on
Excelsior Boulevard, Park Commons Drive, Grand Way, Monterey Drive, & Wolfe
Parkway adjacent to the Excelsior & Grand development.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 09-075 authorizing traffic controls at Lake Street West and
Zarthan Avenue South.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 09-076 establishing a special assessment for the repair of the
water service line at 3129 Webster Avenue South.
4h. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
4i. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2009.
4j. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes March 11, 2009.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes June 1, 2009
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Liquor License for Kerasotes Theatres
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated the applicant has made application for an
on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for the Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC
located at 1625 West End Boulevard. She noted the applicant is specifically applying for the
liquor license to cover the separate upper level restaurant area and the connecting VIP theatre
balcony seating, and intoxicating beverages will only be served in this area. She explained the
applicant has in place a security plan consisting of two ID checkpoints to make certain
patrons in the upper level are 21 or older. She stated the theatre is tentatively scheduled to
open in October 2009.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger asked how the applicant will deal with people that may get
disruptive following alcohol consumption, so that other theatre patrons are not disturbed.
Bob Gallivan, Director of Real Estate Development for Kerasotes Theatres, stated they will
have a minimum of three managers on duty at all times, along with private in-house security.
He stated it is very important to them to make sure all patrons have a pleasant evening.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
application from Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC, dba Showplace 14 #8863 for an on-
sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license to be located at 1625 West End Boulevard with
the license term through March 1, 2010.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale
Avenue to Highway 100
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained the City proposes to install
infrastructure “streetscape” improvements along 36th Street West between Wooddale Avenue
and Highway 100, including replacement of the existing sidewalks, benches and retaining
walls, and providing a unified and pedestrian friendly design in this area. He stated as with
previous improvement projects, the City has worked with adjacent commercial property
owners to arrive at a proposed special service district. The proposed Ordinance lists potential
services to be performed and establishes service charges, which are allocated to each property
based on their frontage along 36th Street. He indicated that staff has met with affected
property owners regarding the proposal and has received growing support for the project.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes June 1, 2009
Councilmember Basill requested clarification regarding the description of services contained
on page 5 of the staff report that lists those services that the City “may” provide.
Mr. Walther explained that the District owners in conjunction with the City will determine
which services the City will provide and the City has the option to change which services it
provides following discussion with the Advisory Board.
Councilmember Omodt asked who is responsible for payment if a property is sold.
Mr. Walther replied the current property owner is responsible for payments and if the
ownership changes, the new owner would then be responsible.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt first
reading of Ordinance authorizing creation of Special Service District No. 6, and scheduling
the second reading of the Ordinance for June 15, 2009.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Community Open House on Tuesday, June 9th, from 5:30
– 8:30 p.m. at Wolfe Park and the Rec Center.
Mayor Jacobs stated the annual Parktacular celebration is coming up on June 18-21, 2009 and
added event buttons are now on sale. He expressed the City Council’s thanks to the many
volunteers who help make this annual event a success. He added further information regarding the
event can be found at www.parktacular.org or on the City’s website.
Mayor Jacobs stated the Meadowbrook anniversary potluck will be held tomorrow, June 2nd, at the
Rec Center beginning at 5:30 p.m. Residents are asked to bring something to share.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 1, 2009
The meeting convened at 5:32 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill (arrived at 5:56 p.m.), C. Paul Carver
(arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public Works (Mr.
Rardin), Management Assistant (Ms. Honold) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Gary Carlson (League of MN Cities) and Doug Franzen Vic Moore (Franzen & Associates)
1. Legislative Update
Mr. Carlson presented a copy of Cities Bulletin, published May 21, 2009 by the League of
Minnesota Cities containing a summary of the 2009 legislative session. He stated the session ended
with no agreement on how to balance the remaining $2.7 billion state budget deficit, but the
governor’s staff said the bill would be vetoed and will likely trigger the unallotment process. He
reported the omnibus tax conference committee unveiled a final tax package designed to address the
remaining deficit through a combination of school revenue “shifts,” tax increases and tax compliance
measures.
Finance Commissioner Hanson has suggested that the cuts to tax aids and credits would likely be
reduced by $200 million to $500 million.
Mr. Carlson stated St. Louis Park does not currently receive local government aid (LGA) but could
lose its market value homestead credit (MVHC) reimbursement. He suggested the City begin
planning around the loss of that money retroactively for 2009 as well as 2010. He added it is not yet
known how the unallotments for 2009 and 2010 MVHC and LGA will cycle into the levy limit
calculations.
Councilmember Sanger asked about other possible cuts that impact cities.
Mr. Carlson replied the budget situation may affect police and fire pension aid or PERA monies;
however, in his meeting with the revenue commissioner, it appears the governor will focus on LGA
and MVHC. He indicated the use of the unallotment provision in a new biennium is
unprecedented.
The City Council discussed levy limits, the special levy authority and the market value homestead
credit.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes June 1, 2009
Mr. Carlson stated he would prepare a summary of the laws that impact cities and encouraged the
City Council to contact him with any questions.
Mr. Carlson discussed administrative fines being used by cities for low level traffic offenses and
stated this year the legislature adopted an authorization for cities to issue low level traffic offense
citations, called administrative fines.
Mr. Harmening stated the sunset provisions for Housing Improvement Areas and Special Services
Districts were extended until June 30, 2013. He added the City was also given authorization to
extend the term of the Elmwood Village TIF District as a means to provide another tool to assist
with the financing of the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange project.
Mr. Harmening also asked Council about their position of pursuing additional funding that has not
yet been secured for the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation Project.
Councilmember Basill stated if freight rail gets re-routed through the City, it may eliminate the
blocking that occurs here. He questioned whether those funds could be applied to mitigation
measures for light rail traffic.
The City Council directed staff to consider the Glencoe Project in terms of the larger context of
overall freight rail and light rail.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to Mr. Carlson and Mr. Moore
for their efforts on behalf of the City.
2. Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue
Mr. Rardin presented an update on the project and stated a design change was required after the
right of way acquisition process was begun in February. He explained that staff wanted to push the
frontage road as far as possible to the south, however, six weeks ago the rail authority indicated its
refusal to give up any of their property and as a result, SRF and Mn/DOT have realigned the
frontage road approximately 47’ to the north. He presented drawings of the current and revised
plans and stated the frontage road is now two lanes instead of three and the left turn lanes have been
eliminated. He stated the realignment will still accommodate the truck traffic in the area.
Mr. Rardin discussed the status of the condemnation proceedings and indicated as of last week, the
90 day waiting period has expired and in order to keep the project on track, monies were deposited
for the appraisals with the court. He explained that the Sikka parcel (Restaurant Brokers building)
went through the appraisal process and offers were made; the owner has submitted two petitions to
the court, one requesting a total take and the other for loss of a going business concern.
Councilmember Sanger stated that staff should conduct due diligence on what is going on at this
location since the property is not maintained.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes June 1, 2009
Mr. Rardin stated final plans are currently being routed for signatures and the final documentation
will be submitted this week to Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration for project
authorization which needs to happen no later than June 30. He stated that Mn/DOT has expressed
its willingness to do all the field work on the project and a cooperative agreement will be presented
to the Council in a couple of weeks. He added Mn/DOT is proposing to own the property from the
south side of the south ramps to the north side of the north ramps, which means Mn/DOT will own
the bridge and the ramps and be responsible for all maintenance; the City will be obligated to
provide snow plowing, street lights, and other light maintenance on Wooddale Avenue through that
area.
Mr. Harmening stated that a gap remains in financing this project, estimated at approximately $3
million. He stated that the Mayor, Councilmembers, and staff have been meeting with the County
for over a year about their participation financially in the project and no firm commitment has yet
been made. He indicated that Commissioner Dorfman has begun talking to her colleagues and will
get an answer to the City as soon as possible. He explained if the City does not get county funding
for this project, the City’s share will be approximately $8.5 million. He stated financing options for
the City include using the HRA levy, issuing general obligation bonds where the City would levy a
tax, using the development fund, or using TIF from an extended Elmwood TIF district. He added
when looking at these options, staff tried to keep in mind the other projects the City has, particularly
Highway 7 and Louisiana. He stated in order to maintain the City’s funding flexibility for
Highway 7 and Louisiana, it would make sense to use the tax increment tool for Highway 7 and
Wooddale and reserve the other funds for Highway 7 and Louisiana. He added staff’s
recommendation is to consider using Elmwood TIF to help fund the obligation at Highway 7 and
Wooddale and the City has the funds available to do that.
Councilmember Basill stated he would be agreeable to using TIF funds for the project and added it
gives the City more flexibility for the Highway 7 and Louisiana project.
Councilmember Sanger respectfully disagreed and stated another option would be to issue general
obligation bonds. She stated her concern with using Elmwood TIF funds is that once the district
expires in 15 years, that money goes into the general fund and if the City extends the TIF fund, it
means the general fund is that much smaller. She added if the City used general obligation bonds
and levied to pay off the debt of those bonds, that would be outside the levy limit law and the City
would be able to use the money generated from the TIF district for its own operational needs.
Mr. Harmening stated the City is not precluded from issuing general obligation bonds for either
project. He explained the City would not be losing property taxes if the property stays in a tax
increment district and the general fund is not taking a hit every year. He stated as an example, the
Excelsior Boulevard TIF district expires next year and the City’s tax capacity will increase. He noted
that all taxes the City collected while in the TIF district are the County’s as well as the City’s, so the
value to the City is in being able to leverage funds through these tax increment districts using the
County’s money as well as the City’s money. He stated staff is suggesting the City issue bonds and
use the tax increment to pay off those bonds.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes June 1, 2009
Mr. DeJong pointed out the levy limit is in place regardless of tax capacity and added the tax
capacity from Excelsior Boulevard is coming back on, but unless you do something to increase the
City’s ability to levy outside levy limits, it will only reduce the tax rate for everybody in general. He
stated one of the big reasons this intersection project is required is because more intensive
development has been created at this location, resulting in a benefit to developers. They are in effect
paying for the traffic capacity improvements that their developments are using. He stated in all
likelihood, the project will be financed through general obligation tax increment revenue bonds. He
noted if the City uses the Elmwood TIF district extension, the City should have enough so no other
city funds are required for the project.
Councilmember Carver expressed concern about the June 30 deadline and that no commitment has
been obtained from the County. He questioned whether the City should be thinking about
Highway 7 and Louisiana now or before even going forward with this project. He expressed
opposition to the City trying to primarily fund a project that has this much regional impact mainly
because of the precedent it sets.
Councilmember Paprocki respectfully disagreed and stated the City has a very unique circumstance
here. He added there are many reasons why this project should move forward.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated this project should be completed and the City has already spent
approximately $3 million on the project.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmembers Paprocki and Finkelstein and added while
Councilmember Carver’s comments are philosophically correct, the bridge still needs to be
completed. She asked if any funds might be available through the Hennepin County Community
Works Program.
Mr. Harmening stated those funds might come into play more on Highway 7 and Louisiana rather
than this project.
Councilmember Basill suggested staff continue its discussions with Commissioner Dorfman and felt
the City should not have to use TIF funds unless the County does not come through with its fair
share of financing.
The City Council asked that this topic be placed on the June 8 Study Session for further discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
None
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Master Partnership Contract Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Entering Into a Master Partnership Agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to formalize a relationship with MnDOT which will provide for
efficiencies in operations?
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park each have specific
roadways and facilities under their jurisdictions with respective responsibilities for each. However,
during the course of day to day operations, it is not uncommon for agencies to consider sharing
resources or assisting each other in certain situations. This may include operations such as relamping
traffic signals, providing material testing services, or even sharing specific resources such as
equipment. In the interest of efficiency, cost, and even public safety, it is often much more feasible
for an agency to provide work or resources for another agency when practical. The agency can then
reimburse the other agency as appropriate after the fact.
For example, Mn/DOT is currently upgrading traffic signal cabinets along the entire TH 7 corridor.
While this work is under contract and being performed by Mn/DOT, this also presents a good
opportunity to upgrade some cabinets owned and operated by the City that are linked to the
Mn/DOT facilities. In consideration of cost and efficiency, it is much more practical for Mn/DOT
to perform the work for the City and to bill accordingly. This saves the City the cost, time, and
effort from engaging in a separate contract on its own at a later time.
The Master Partnership Contract provides a base document to allow for the mutual sharing of
services. Specific work services will be negotiated between the City and Mn/DOT by the use of a
Work Order, which can be authorized by the Director of Public Works or his designee as each
situation arises. The Master Partnership Contract (attached) includes a sample Work Order.
The Master Partnership Contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This agreement will allow for increased efficiency of the use of funding and resources for specific
activities by allowing for the mutual cooperation and sharing of resources with another agency. The
agreement will also allow for more rapid responses to specific service and public safety needs.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Master Partnership Contract With the Minnesota Department of Transportation
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None
Attachments: Resolution
Master Partnership Contract
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Master Partnership Contract With the Minnesota Department of Transportation
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO ENTER
INTO A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate closely with
local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the
efficient delivery of such services to all levels of government; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and local governments are
authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative
efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such
opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders”
against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified
needs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
1. That the City of St. Louis Park enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation as attached to this Resolution.
2. That the City Manager is authorized to execute such contract and any amendments hereto.
3. That the Director of Public Works or his or her designee is authorized to negotiate work
order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide
for payment to or from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and that the Director
of Public Works may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City without
further approval of the City Council provided all City Charter and State Statute
requirements are met.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 1 -
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AND
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT
This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation hereinafter referred to as
the “State” and City of St. Louis Park, acting through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the “Local Government".
Recitals
1. The parties are authorized to enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02.
2. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and
cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway
system.
3. Each party to this Contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minnesota Statutes §160.02 (subd. 25).
4. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39, subdivision 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such
work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the
construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance.
5. Minnesota Statues §174.02 (subd. 6) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other
governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing
transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or
that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota.
6. Each party wishes to occasionally procure services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of
delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for the efficient handling
of such requests. This Master Partnership Contract contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties
hereto. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified herein) enter into a “Work Order”
contracts.
7. Subsequent to the execution of this Master Partnership Contract, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order”
contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the
specific work.
8. The parties are entering into this Master Partnership Contract to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders
subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract.
Master Contract
1 Term of Master Contract
1.1 Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as
required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2.
A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed.
1.2 Expiration Date. This Contract will expire five years after its effective date.
1.3 Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local
Government) for each particular engagement. The work order contract will specify the detailed scope of work and
deliverables for that engagement. A party must not begin work under a work order until such work order is fully executed.
The terms of this Master Partnership Contract will apply to all work orders issued hereunder, unless specifically varied in the
work order. The Local Government understands that this Master Contract is not a guarantee of any payments or work order
assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 4
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 2 -
1.4 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order
contracts: 11. Liability; 12. State Audits; 13. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 16. Publicity and
Endorsement; 17. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 21. Data Disclosure. All terms of this Master Contract will
survive with respect to any Work Order issued prior to the expiration date of the Master Contract.
1.5 Exhibits. A sample work order contract is attached and incorporated into this contract as Exhibit A.
2 Scope of Work/Deliverables
2.1 A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts.
2.1.1 Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of
the other party. As defined by Minnesota Statutes §16C.08 (subd. 1) professional/technical services “means services
that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or
recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task”. Professional and technical
services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services.
Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services,
surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as
performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent
domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open
houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s
professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work.
2.1.2 Routine Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide routine roadway maintenance upon the request of the other
party. Routine roadway maintenance services may include, but are not limited to; lane or edge striping, pavement
message painting, sign repair, guardrail repair, carcass removal, or equipment repair. Routine maintenance does not
include roadway reconstruction. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training,
expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party
performing the work.
2.1.3 Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other
party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction,
reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal
systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be
performed by the providing party’s own forces, or the providing party may administer outside contracts for such
work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work
(including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services
must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work.
2.2 When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to
perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and
cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific
project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “routine
roadway maintenance” items as identified section 2.1.2. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and
timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The
Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to authorization by the State.
3 Responsibilities of the Providing Party
The party requesting the work will be referred to as the “Requesting Party” and the party performing the work will be referred to
as the “Providing Party”. Each work order will set forth particular requirements for that project/engagement.
3.1 Terms Applicable to ALL Work Orders. The terms in this section 3.1 will apply to ALL work orders.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 5
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 3 -
3.1.1 Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is
responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to
give and receive any notices required or permitted under this Master Contract or the work order.
3.1.2 The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in
responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order. For
services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in
charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order may not be otherwise assigned, sublet,
or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent
will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work.
3.1.3 If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering
and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be
covered by other technical service agreements. If the State furnishes the services requested, the Local Government
will promptly pay the State to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such
services. The costs and expenses will include the current State labor additives and overhead rates, subject to
adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit.
3.1.4 Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project.
Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed is
considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment.
3.1.5 In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued hereunder, the Providing Agency will
comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or
permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its
contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations.
3.2 Additional Terms for Routine Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 3.1 and this section 3.2 will apply to all work
orders for routine roadway maintenance.
3.2.1 Unless otherwise provided for by agreement or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions
that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work.
3.2.2 The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and
operations.
3.2.3 The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign
posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals.
3.3 Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 3.1 and this section 3.3 will apply to all work
orders for construction administration.
3.3.1 Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law.
3.3.2 Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount.
The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the
contractor.
3.3.3 Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction.
3.3.4 For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless
against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide
evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 6
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 4 -
3.3.5 Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law.
3.3.6 Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not
limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts
3.3.7 The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes
do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order.
3.3.8 The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting
Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order when necessary. The
Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request.
3.3.9 The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office.
3.3.10 The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party.
4. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party
4.1 After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession
relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work.
4.2 All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned
upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention
requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law).
4.3 The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data
to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before
proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data
is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will
not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation.
4.4 The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid
solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway
Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction.
4.5 The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and/or inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to
have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining
funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s).
4.6 The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party.
5 Time
In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence.
6 Consideration and Payment
6.1 Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order.
6.2 State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order
contracts issued pursuant to this Master Contract will not exceed $1 million.
6.3 Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services,
and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed
for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases
where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater
amount than provided in the current "Mn/DOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 7
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 5 -
Mn/DOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside
of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel.
6.4 Payment.
6.4.1 Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will
make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law.
6.4.2 Payment by the Local Government. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of
Transportation. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MN/DOT CONTRACT
NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT. Remit payment to the address below:
Mn/DOT
Attn: Cash Accounting
RE: Mn/DOT Contract Number (see note above)
Mail Stop 215
395 John Ireland Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155
6.4.3 Payment by the State.
6.4.3.1 Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an
itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the
invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more
frequently than monthly.
6.4.3.2 Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical
services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 5(b), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under
any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed
by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized
representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work
order contract.
7 Conditions of Payment
All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction,
as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with
all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the
State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law.
8 Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts
8.1 The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government’s
Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government’s performance. The Local Government’s
Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without
approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body.
8.2 The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract.
9 State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager
9.1 The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility
to monitor the State’s performance.
9.2 The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 8
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 6 -
10 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete
10.1 Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Master Contract or any work order
contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the
same parties who executed and approved this Master Contract, or their successors in office.
10.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be
effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or
their successors in office.
10.3 Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not
waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it.
10.4 Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and agreements between the
State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued
hereunder, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
11 Liability.
Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government’s liability is
governed by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes
section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other
party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any
environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to
the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minnesota Statutes §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the
protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act.
12 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to
any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate,
for a minimum of six years from the end of this Master Contract.
13 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property
13.1 Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Master Contract and any work
order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the
Local Government under this Master Contract and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply
to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State.
13.2. Intellectual Property Rights
13.2.1 Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual
property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and
Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements,
discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs,
negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or
originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with
others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.”
Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives,
designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms,
prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract.
The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately
returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract.
To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 9
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 7 -
deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may
have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the
Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s
ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the
Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual for its own non-commercial purposes,
including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies
such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
13.2.2 Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property.
13.2.2.1 Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or
conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party,
including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing
Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and
must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure
thereon.
13.2.2.2 Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all
intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party,
and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the
Works and Documents.
14 Affirmative Action
The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
§363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for
the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work
under a work order issued pursuant to this Master Contract, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and
any contracts awarded as a result thereof:
14.1 Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-
time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its
principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R.
Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time
employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal
affirmative action requirements.
14.2 Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the
employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation
of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of
compliance may be voided.
14.3 Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600.
14.3.1 General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not
limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing
certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing
deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and
contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action
plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts
5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559.
14.3.1.2 Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for
disabled workers:
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 10
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 8 -
(1) The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for
employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in
employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their
physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other
forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
(2) The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
(3) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for
noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, and the rules
and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
(4) The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for
employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative
action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for
employment, and the rights of applicants and employees.
(5) The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective
bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of
Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take
affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons.
14.3.2 Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a
good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by
the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this
contract by the Commissioner or the State.
14.3.3 Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §
363.073 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance.
15 Workers’ Compensation
Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This Master Contract, and any work
orders issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minnesota Statutes §15.53.
To the extent that this Master Contract, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minnesota Statutes
§15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the Contract and the statute.
16 Publicity
16.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must
identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s
Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press
releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly
with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work
order contract.
16.2 Data Practices Act. Section 16.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s responsibilities under the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act.
17 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue
for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in
the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 11
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 9 -
18 Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors
The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. §
16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require
its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment
from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and
one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the
subcontractor(s).
19 Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every
contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district
in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring
of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material
supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the
United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no
contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of
any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or
persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is
a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any
other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be
forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract.
20 Termination
20.1 Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this Master Contract
and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government.
Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for
services satisfactorily performed.
20.2 Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this Master Contract and any
work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Upon termination, the
Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed.
20.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this Master Contract and any work order
contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be
continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax
notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and
effective date of termination. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis,
for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the
master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source,
not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable
time of the State’s receiving that notice.
21 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270.66, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax
identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies
and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of
federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent
state tax liabilities, if any.
22 Defense of Claims and Lawsuits
If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s contractors and
subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this Master Contract,
the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 12
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 10 -
allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims . The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for
defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or
omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation,
settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local
Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written
approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law.
23 Additional Provisions
23.1 Foreign Outsourcing. If the Local Government lets a contract for professional/technical or other services pursuant to any
work order, the Local Government will require proposing vendors/bidders to disclose where work will be performed, and
will use the extent to which services will be performed in the United States as a factor in determining the “best value” in
awarding any such contract. It is the State’s policy that state funds spent on contracts remain in the United States to the
maximum extent possible.
[The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank]
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 13
Mn/DOT Agreement No 94986
CMFS Contract No:
Master Partnership Contract Rev 06/24/08 - 11 -
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
The Local Government certifies that the appropriate
person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the
Local Government as required by applicable articles or
bylaws.
By:
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
Title
Date:
Date:
By:
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
As delegated to Materials Management Division
Title
By:
Date:
Date:
Mn/DOT Contract Management
As to form & execution
By:
Date:
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 14
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 1 -
EXHIBIT A – SAMPLE WORK ORDER
Check appropriate box:
Payable by State
Receivable by State
[INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM ARE IN BRACKETS. FILL IN EVERY BLANK AND DELETE ALL
INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE SENDING THIS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INCLUDE AN ENCUMBRANCE
WORKSHEET IN ORDER TO ASSIST WITH ENCUMBERING THE MONEY FOR THIS WORK ORDER CONTRACT.
IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE WITH THIS FORM, CONTACT Mn/DOT’s STATE AID DIVISION. SEND A DRAFT OF
THIS WORK ORDER FOR REVIEW TO CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.]
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WORK ORDER UNDER
MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT
State Project (SP): Trunk Highway (TH):
Project Identification: [Provide a Brief Identification of the Project]
This Work Order Contract is issued under the authority of State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Master
Partnership Contract No. [Enter Master Contract Number] between the state of Minnesota acting through its Commissioner of
Transportation (“State”) and [Insert the Legal Name of the Local Government ], a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
(“Local Government ) and is subject to all applicable provisions and covenants of that Agreement which are incorporated herein by
reference.
Work Order Contract
Article 1 Term of Work Order Contract; Incorporation of Exhibits:
1.1 Effective date: This Work Order Contract will be effective on the date that all required signatures are obtained by State,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 2. The Providing Agency must not begin
work under this Contract until ALL required signatures have been obtained and the Providing
Agency has been notified in writing to begin such work by the Requesting Agency’s Authorized
Representative.
1.2 Expiration date: This Work Order Contract will expire on [Insert Date], or when all obligations have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, which ever occurs first.
1.3 Exhibits: Exhibits A through [X] are attached and incorporated into this Work Order Contract. [Delete this clause if not using
exhibits – Note that Exhibit A should always be the correct “Standard Terms” for the applicable type of
work specified in section 2.1 below ]
Article 2 Nature of Work; Requesting and Providing Party:
2.1 The box (es) check below indicate the nature of the work to be performed. See Section 2.1 of the Master Partnership
Contract for applicable definitions.
Routine Roadway Maintenance
Professional and Technical Services
Construction Administration
2.2 The boxes checked below show which party is the “Requesting Party” and which party is the “Providing Party”.
2.2.1 The Requesting Party is State Local Government
2.2.2 The Providing Party is State Local Government
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 15
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 2 -
Article 3 Scope of Work:
3.1 The Providing Party will perform services under this Work Order summarized generally as follows: [Provide a general
summary of services].
For example: The Local Government will provide routine maintenance as defined in Article 3, Deliverables by the Local
Government , on those portions of the trunk highway roadways and bridges within the corporate limits of the Local
Government as defined below, referenced on the map attached hereto as exhibit [ __ ].
TH 999E: The following 0.88 miles of trunk highway and designated in the MnDOT records as control section 9000;
beginning at the intersection of TH 91 and 8th St SE thence northerly along the route to the intersection of TH 91 and Easy
Street. This description has a total of 3.52 equivalent lane miles.
3.2 The Providing Party will perform work in accordance with the “Standard Terms” contained in Exhibit A.
3.3 For a detailed description of work, see [Exhibit ___] and Article 4 ‘Deliverables by the Local Government ’. [Whether
included in the body of this contract or as an exhibit, the scope of duties must be sufficiently detailed to hold the Local
Government accountable for performance.]
Article 4 Deliverables by the Providing Party:
4.1 Deliverables are the work products created or supplied by the Providing Party pursuant to the terms of this Work Order. The
detailed summary of the deliverables for this work order are as follows: [Give a detailed description of deliverables along
with due dates. This list should specify acceptable end products of the deliverables.]
Deliverable Description Due Date
Deliverable 1 Description Due Date
Deliverable 2 Description Due Date
[Modify the table above as necessary. If deliverables are further detailed in an exhibit, add “See Exhibit ___ for additional
details on required deliverables]
Article 5 Items provided or completed by the Requesting Party
5.1 The following will be provided or completed by the Requesting Party: [Give a detailed description of anything being
provided and or completed by the Requesting Party, such as plans, guidelines, computer files, special provisions, etc.]
[SELECT CORRECT FORM OF ARTICLE 6 FROM THE FOLLOWING FOR USE WITH COST PLUS, LUMP SUM, OR UNIT
RATE WORK ORDER CONTRACT. MOST WORK ORDERS ARE LIKELY TO BE UNTI RATE, LUMP SUM, OR ACTUAL
COST – USE OF COST PLUS IS UNLIKELY, AND SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. DELETE
THE ALTERNATE VERSIONS OF ARTICLE 6 (and check numbering) WHEN FINISHED.]
Article 6 Consideration of Payment: [Use with Lump Sum Work Order Contracts]
6.1 The Requesting Party will pay for all services performed by the Providing Party on a Lump Sum basis. [Provide additional
detail if necessary, e.g. if paying “Lump Sum per deliverable”]
6.2 The Providing Party will submit invoices for payment in accordance with the following schedule:
[Choose the appropriate method of payment liquidation: One-time payment or Deliverable schedule payments.]
6.3 The Requesting Party’s total obligation for all compensation and reimbursements to the Providing Party is $[fill in maximum
value of work order. Note that the total of work orders may not exceed the maximum value of the master contract].
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 16
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 3 -
Article 6 Consideration of Payment: [Use with Unit Rate Work Order Contracts]
6.1 The Requesting Party will pay for all services performed by the Providing Party on a Unit Rate basis as follows:
1. Unitized Costs: $[ ___ ]
2. Direct Costs: $[ ___ ]
TOTAL WORK ORDER CONTRACT VALUE: $[ ___ ]
6.2 Allowable direct costs include project specific costs listed in Exhibit [ __ ]. The Requesting Party’s Project Manager must
approve any other direct costs not listed in Exhibit [ __ ], in writing, by prior to expenditure.
6.3 The Requesting Party’s total obligation for all compensation and reimbursements to the Providing Party will not exceed $[fill
in maximum value of work order. Note that the total of work orders may not exceed the maximum value of the master
contract].
Article 6 Consideration of Payment: [Use with Actual Cost Reimbursement Contracts]
6.1 The Requesting Party will pay for all services performed by the Providing Party on an actual cost reimbursement basis as
follows:
6.1.1 The following items will be reimbursable at their actual cost to the Providing Party:
6.1.1.1 Materials and supplies reasonably needed to perform the work; and
6.1.1.2 Equipment needed to perform the work, at its rental rate as established by the State; and
6.1.1.3 Actual and reasonable costs of consultants and contractors engaged to perform the work; and
6.1.1.4 Actual salary costs incurred by the Providing Party, at the normal rate of pay plus reasonable and customary labor
additives.
6.1.2 The Providing Party must, upon request of the Requesting Party, provide documentation showing a breakdown of
costs claimed for reimbursement.
6.2 The Requesting Party’s total obligation for all compensation and reimbursements to the Providing Party will not exceed
$ [fill in maximum value of work order. Note that the total of work orders may not exceed the maximum value of the
master contract].
Article 6 Consideration of Payment: [Use with Cost plus Work Order Contracts]
6.1 The Requesting Party will pay for all services performed by the Providing Party on a Cost plus Overhead basis as follows:
1. Providing Party’s Costs: $
2. Overhead: $
3. Direct Costs: $
TOTAL WORK ORDER CONTRACT VALUE: $
6.2 The overhead rate of [XXXXX] % of direct Salary Costs will be used on a provisional basis determined by the Audit Section
of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
6.3 See Exhibit [ __ ] for Budget Details on the Providing Party and its consultants (if any).
6.4 Allowable direct costs include project specific costs listed in Exhibit [ __ ]. The Requesting Party’s Project Manager must
approve any other direct costs not listed in Exhibit [ __ ], in writing, prior to expenditure.
6.5 The Requesting Party’s total obligation for all compensation and reimbursements to the Providing Party will not exceed $[fill
in maximum value of work order. Note that the total of work orders may not exceed the maximum value of the master
contract].
[SELECT THE CORRECT FORM OF ARTICLE 7 FROM THE FOLLOWING FOR USE WITH COST PLUS, LUMP SUM,
ACTUAL COST REIMBURSEMENT, OR UNIT RATE WORK ORDER CONTRACT. NOTE THAT IF THE STATE IS THE
PROVIDING PARTY, PRE-PAYMENT MAY BE REQUIRED. MODIFY THIS SECTION ACCORDING TO PROEJCT NEEDS
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 17
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 4 -
AND DELETE INFORMATION NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS WORK ORDER. BE SURE TO CHECK PARAGRAPH
NUMBERING AFTER DELETIONS ARE MADE.]
Article 7 Terms of Payment: [Use with Lump Sum Work Order Contracts]
7.1 The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party either: 1) upon satisfactory completion of the work under this Work Order
Contract and acceptance by the Requesting Party’s Project Manager, or 2) scheduled progress payments based upon
completion and acceptance of deliverables by the Requesting Party’s Project Manager.
7.2 If the “Professional and Technical Services” box is checked in Article 2.1, and the State is the Requesting Party, the State
will retain up to 10% of the final amount due to the Local Government, as required by Minnesota Statutes §16C.08, until the
work and deliverables have been approved by the State.
7.3 The Providing Party will submit signed invoices, and the signature will attest that the services have actually been performed,
and that the claimed amounts have not been previously claimed or paid. The Providing Party will use the format set forth in
Exhibit [ __ ] entitled “Invoice” when submitting Invoices.
7.4 The Providing Party will submit the monthly progress report set forth in Exhibit [ __ ] showing the progress of work in work
hours according to the tasks listed in Article 2 Scope of Work and Deliverables. [MODIFY OR DELETE THIS CLAUSE AS
NECESSARY]
7.5 See section 6.4 of the Master Partnership Contract regarding remittance of Payment to the State. The Mn/DOT Contract
Number and Work Order Number must be included with the remittance. [DELETE THIS SECTION IF THE STATE IS
PAYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT].
Article 7 Terms of Payment: [Use with Unit Rate Work Order Contracts]
7.1 The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party upon receipt and approval of an invoice for eligible costs. The Providing
Party will submit signed invoices, and the signature will attest that the services have actually been performed, and that the
claimed amounts have not been previously claimed or paid. The Providing Party will use the format set forth in Exhibit [ __ ]
when submitting Invoices.
7.2 If the “Professional and Technical Services” box is checked in Article 2.1, and the State is the Requesting Party, the State
will retain up to 10% of the final amount due to the Local Government, as required by Minnesota Statutes §16C.08, until the
work and deliverables have been approved by the State.
7.3 The Providing Party will submit the monthly progress report set forth in Exhibit [ __ ] showing the progress of work in work
hours according to the tasks listed in Scope of Work and Deliverables articles.
7.4 See section 6.4 of the Master Partnership Contract regarding remittance of Payment to the State. The Mn/DOT Contract
Number and Work Order Number must be included with the remittance. [DELETE THIS SECTION IF THE STATE IS
PAYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT].
Article 7 Terms of Payment: [Use with Actual Cost Reimbursement Work Order Contracts]
7.1 The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party upon receipt and approval of an invoice for eligible costs. The Providing
Party will submit signed invoices, and the signature will attest that the services have actually been performed, and that the
claimed amounts have not been previously claimed or paid. Upon request of the Requesting Party, the Providing Party must
provide documentation showing the actual costs incurred. The Providing Party will use the format set forth in Exhibit [ __ ]
when submitting Invoices.
7.2 If the “Professional and Technical Services” box is checked in Article 2.1, and the State is the Requesting Party, the State
will retain up to 10% of the final amount due to the Local Government, as required by Minnesota Statutes §16C.08, until the
work and deliverables have been approved by the State.
7.3 The Providing Party will submit the monthly progress report set forth in Exhibit [ __ ] showing the progress of work in work
hours according to the tasks listed in Scope of Work and Deliverables articles.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 18
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 5 -
7.4 See section 6.4 of the Master Partnership Contract regarding remittance of Payment to the State. The Mn/DOT Contract
Number and Work Order Number must be included with the remittance. [DELETE THIS SECTION IF THE STATE IS
PAYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT].
Article 7 Terms of Payment: [Use with Cost Plus Work Order Contracts]
7.1 The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party upon receipt and approval of an invoice for eligible costs. The Providing
Party will submit signed invoices, and the signature will attest that the services have actually been performed, and that the
claimed amounts have not been previously claimed or paid. Upon request of the Requesting Party, the Providing Party must
provide documentation showing the actual costs incurred. The Providing Party will use the format set forth in Exhibit [ __ ]
when submitting Invoices.
7.2 If the “Professional and Technical Services” box is checked in Article 2.1, and the State is the Requesting Party, the State
will retain up to 10% of the final amount due to the Local Government, as required by Minnesota Statutes §16C.08, until the
work and deliverables have been approved by the State.
7.3 The Providing Party will submit the monthly progress report set forth in Exhibit [ __ ] showing the progress of work in work
hours according to the tasks listed in Scope of Work and Deliverables articles.
7.4 See section 6.4 of the Master Partnership Contract regarding remittance of Payment to the State. The Mn/DOT Contract
Number and Work Order Number must be included with the remittance. [DELETE THIS SECTION IF THE STATE IS
PAYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT].
Article 8 Local Government ’s Project Manager:
The Local Government ’s Project Manager for this Work Order is:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Responsibility:
The Local Government ’s Project Manager for this Work Order is responsible for overseeing the Local Government ’s fulfillment
of its obligations under this Work Order, reviewing and approving invoices, resolving disputes related to this Work Order, and for
giving or receiving any notices required or permitted by this Work Order.
Article 9 State’s Project Manager:
The State’s Project Manager, for this Work Order is:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Responsibility:
The State’s Project Manager is responsible for overseeing the State’s fulfillment of its obligations under this Work Order,
reviewing and approving invoices, resolving disputes related to this Work Order, and for giving or receiving any notices required
or permitted by this Work Order.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 19
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 6 -
Article 10 Termination.
10.1 Termination by the State or Local Government. The Local Government, the State or the Commissioner of Administration
may cancel this Work Order at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the other Party. Upon
termination, the Providing party will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed.
10.2 Termination for Insufficient Funding. If the State is the Requesting Party, The State may immediately terminate this Work
Order if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued
at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the
Local Government . The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of
termination. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services
satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the Work Order is
terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State
must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that
notice.
Article 11 Additional Provisions
[Add any additional contract information here, or “NONE”.]
THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 20
EXHIBIT A – SAMPLE WORK ORDER
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 7 -
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
The local Government certifies that the appropriate
person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the
Local Government as required by applicable articles,
bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.
By: By:
Title: Title: District Engineer
Date Date
STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
The individual certifies funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. 16A.15 and 16C.05
By: By:
Date: Date
MAPS
Number
Mn/DOT CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
(As to form and execution).
By:
Title:
Date
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 21
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 8 -
[THIS EXHIBIT SHOULD BE ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED INTO ALL WORK ORDERS. SELECT THE
PROPER PROVISIONS (based on the boxes checked in section 2.1) AND DELETE THE INAPPLICABLE PROVISIONS.
MODIFY IF NECESSARY]
EXHIBIT A – STANDARD TERMS
STANDARD TERMS FOR PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
1. The Providing Party will prepare all documents in accordance with Minnesota law, applicable Federal laws and regulations,
and geometric design standards for trunk highway plans as described in the current versions of MnDOT Manuals, available
through the Mn/DOT State Aid Division or on the MnDOT website, www.dot.state.mn.us
2. The Providing Party will, as applicable in developing plans, include the standard specifications from the latest edition of
Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, and all amendments thereto.
3. The Providing Party will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly perform, supervise,
and document the work for the project(s). The services of the Providing Party to be performed hereunder may not be
assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by Mn/DOT. This written consent will in no way relieve the Local
Government from its primary responsibility for performance of the work.
STANDARD TERMS FOR ROUTINE ROADWAY MAINTENANCE
1. The Providing Party will perform routine maintenance in accordance with the specifications and guidelines in the current
“Mn/DOT Maintenance Manual”
2. Unless otherwise provided in this Work Order, the Providing Party is not required to perform extraordinary maintenance or
reconstruction. The Providing Party should notify the Requesting Party immediately if it becomes aware of any
maintenance, not covered by this Work Order that should be addressed immediately to prevent the risk of serious injury to
the public.
3. The Providing Party will perform traffic control in accordance with Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
STANDARD TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
1. [If not provided by Requesting Party,] the Providing Party will prepare plans and special provisions in conformance with
geometric design standards for trunk highway plans as described in the current versions of MnDOT Manuals, available from
the District Office or the MnDOT web site, www.dot.state.mn.us.
2. The Providing Party will prepare the proposal for highway construction for the construction contract, which will include any
provisions supplied by the Requesting Party, and any provisions required by Minnesota law and applicable Federal laws and
regulations.
3. The Providing Party will prepare and publish the bid solicitation for the project(s) as required by state laws. The solicitation
will state where the proposals, plans, and specifications are available for the inspection of prospective bidders, and where the
Providing party will receive the sealed bids.
4. The Providing Party will solicit for bids after obtaining written notification from the Requesting Party that the plans and
special provisions have been approved.
5. The Providing Party will prepare and sell the plan and proposal packages and prepare and distribute any addenda, if needed.
6. The Providing Party may include other work in the construction contract.
7. The Providing Party will receive and open bids.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 22
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 9 -
8. After the bids are opened, the Providing Party will consider the bids and will award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder
or best value proposer, as required or permitted by Minnesota law and subject to the concurrence of the Requesting Party, or
the Providing Party may reject all bids.
a. The Providing Party will, within 7 days of opening bids for the construction contract, submit to the
Requesting Party (to MnDOT’s District Engineer if Mn/DOT is the Requesting Party) a copy of the low
bid and an abstract of all bids together with the Providing Party’s request for concurrence by the
Requesting Party in the award of the construction contract. The Providing Party will not award the
construction contract until the Requesting Party advises the Providing Party in writing of its concurrence
therein.
b. The Providing Party may reject, and the Requesting Party may require the Providing Party to reject, any or
all bids for the construction contract. The party rejecting or requiring the rejection of bids must provide the
other party written notice of that rejection or requirement for rejection no later than 30 days after opening
bids. Upon the rejection of all bids pursuant to this section, a party may request, in writing, that the bidding
process be repeated. Upon the other party’s written approval of such request, the Providing Party will
repeat the bidding process in a reasonable period of time, without additional cost or expense to the
Requesting Party. The Providing Party may also elect to eliminate the Requesting Party’s work from the
contract, and proceed to award the contract for just the Providing Party’s own work.
9. The Providing Party will prepare and execute a construction contract with the lowest responsible bidder (or the best value
proposer if allowed by law) in accordance with the special provisions and the latest edition of Mn/DOT’s Standard
Specifications for Construction and all amendments thereto.
10. The Providing Party will give the Requesting Party five days notice of its intention to start the contract construction.
11. The Project(s) will be constructed in accordance with plans, special provisions, and standard specifications of each Project.
The standard specifications will be the latest edition of Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, and all
amendments thereto. The plans, special provisions, and standard specifications will be on file at the Providing Party’s Office.
The plans, special provisions, and specifications are incorporated into this agreement by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
12. The Providing Party will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly supervise, inspect,
and document the work for the Project(s). The services of the Providing Party to be performed hereunder may not be
assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party. This written consent will in no way
relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for performance of the work.
13. The Providing Party will document quantities in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Mn/DOT Contract
Administration Manual Sections 410 and 420 (including amendments and successors of those sections) in effect at the time
the work is performed.
14. The Providing Party will test materials in accordance with the Mn/DOT Schedule of Materials Control in effect at the time
each Project was let. The Providing Party will notify the Requesting Party when work is in progress on the Project(s) that
requires observation by the Independent Assurance Inspector as required by the Independent Assurance Schedule.
15. The Providing Party will cause the contract construction to be started and completed in accordance with the time schedule in
the construction contract special provisions. The completion date for the contract construction may be extended, by an
exchange of letters between the Project Engineer and the Requesting Party’s Engineer (or the Engineer’s authorized
representative), for unavoidable delays encountered in the performance thereof.
16. The Providing Party may make changes in the plans or the character of the work, as may be necessary to complete the
Project(s), and may enter into supplemental agreement(s). All changes in the plans, specifications, or special provisions for
the Requesting Party’s cost participation for construction covered under this Work order and all addenda, change orders and
supplemental agreements entered into by the Providing Party for the Requesting Party’s cost participation construction
covered under this Work Order must be approved by the Requesting Party’s Engineer (or the Engineer’s authorized
representative) prior to performance of the work. Failure to obtain such approval may result in such costs being disallowed
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 23
EXHIBIT A – SAMPLE WORK ORDER
Mn/DOT Agreement No Work Order
CMFS Contract No:
(Exhibit A Rev 12/10/07) Exhibit A - 10 -
for reimbursement.
17. The Providing Party will prepare partial estimates in accordance with the terms of the construction contract for the Project(s).
The Project Engineer will certify each partial estimate. Following certification of the partial estimate, the Providing Party will
make partial payments in accordance with the terms of the construction contract for the Project(s).
18. If the Local Government is the Providing Party for any trunk highway projects affecting utilities, the Local Government will
coordinate with the State’s Utilities Office. The Local Government will provide a signed “Utility Certification Checklist” in
accordance with the current Mn/DOT Technical Memorandum.
19. The Providing Party will prepare all required reports and keep records as required by this Work Order.
20. Upon completion of the Project(s), the Project Engineer will determine whether the work will be accepted, and request final
inspection by the Requesting Party’s project manager.
21. Upon completion of the Project(s), the Providing Party will prepare a final estimate in accordance with the terms of the
construction contract for the Project(s). The Project Engineer will certify the final estimate. Following certification of the
final costs, the Providing Party will make the final payment in accordance with the terms of the construction contract for the
Project(s).
THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Master Partnership Contract Agreement with MN Dept of Transportation Page 24
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation: Alabama Avenue – 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project –Project No. 2009-
1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a
contract with the firm in the amount of $631,912.26 for the 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project
– Project No. 2009-1100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the final step which will allow the project to move forward?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on June 2, 2009 for the 2009 MSA Street Improvement Project. This year’s
project includes work on Alabama Avenue between Excelsior Blvd and West 36th Street. The project
includes pavement replacement, curb and gutter repair, sidewalk widening, storm sewer work and
the addition of traffic calming elements.
A total of eight (8) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in
the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 21, and 28, 2009 and in the Construction Bulletin on May
18, and 25, 2009. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Valley Paving, Inc. $631,912.26
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $669,113.76
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $678,081.55*
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $687,457.17
Hardrives, Inc. $688,608.88
Northdale Construction Co., Inc. $724,822.08
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $729,494.11
C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $819,183.40
Engineer’s Estimate $791,605.50
*Bid corrected upon extension
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: 2009 MSA Street Improvement – Project No. 2009-1100
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Valley Paving, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Valley Paving is a reputable
contractor that has worked for the city before and has successfully completed previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin in late-June or early July and should be completed by the end of
October 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project will be funded by State Aid funds (gas tax monies) and the City’s utility fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Creation of Special Service District No. 6 (2nd Reading) and Imposition of a Service Charge within
the District – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance to create Special Service
District No. 6 and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
2. Motion to approve the attached resolution imposing a service charge for Special Service District
No. 6.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take steps to create the City’s sixth special service district?
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 2009 the City Council held the public hearings on the ordinance and resolution,
approved the first reading of the ordinance, and set the second reading date.
The City proposes to install infrastructure improvements along 36th Street West between Wooddale
Avenue and Highway 100. The improvements will replace the existing sidewalks, benches and
retaining walls that are in poor condition, and provide a unified and pedestrian friendly design on
this corridor.
These special “streetscape” improvements include pedestrian lighting, planters, benches, bollards,
bicycle parking, decorative tree lighting, new sidewalks, landscaping and irrigation systems.
To date, five special service districts have been established in St. Louis Park along the Excelsior
Boulevard and Park Place Boulevard corridors. Such special service districts provide funding for the
proper maintenance of streetscape improvements. In order to maintain the proposed streetscape
improvements along 36th Street West a sixth special service district must be established. As with the
previous improvement projects, the City has worked with adjacent commercial property owners
along 36th Street West to arrive at a proposed special service district.
What has been the extent of communication with the affected property owners?
City staff communicated with affected commercial property owners through group informational
meetings, individual meetings and phone conversations, letters and newsletters in 2007-2009. At
each of the three informational meetings in 2008 (January, July, December) City staff
communicated how a special service district would operate and how the fees would be calculated and
collected. Property owners received specific information regarding the proposed annual budget for
the district and proposed service charge allocation for each property. City staff met individually with
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
property owners within the proposed area of Special Service District #6 to discuss the potential
improvements, the special service district concept, and responded to questions relevant to their
particular properties. In addition, detailed information describing the proposed district and how
costs would be allocated was distributed to all property owners in July and December.
Has the city received the sufficient level of petitions required to hold a public hearing?
Yes. Owners of five of the 15 commercial parcels petitioned for a public hearing to consider the
establishment of a special service district. These owners represent approximately 47% of the affected
land area and 39.4% of the proposed service charges in the district.
In order for the City Council to convene a public hearing, owners representing 25% or more of the
land area in the proposed district, and owners subject to 25% or more of the proposed service
charge, must file a petition requesting a public hearing.
What services will the district provide?
The district will provide for the maintenance of landscape materials, decorative lighting, banners,
planters, the irrigation system and electric service (see attached Proposed List of Services). The
majority of property owners expressed little interest in a higher level of snow and ice removal beyond
what the City currently provides, thus snow removal is not part of the proposed district budget.
How were the costs allocated to the property owners?
The service charge is based on the amount of front footage each commercial property has along 36th
Street West. While there are other methods available, front footage was determined to be the most
easily understood and obtained.
How would the service charges be collected?
With the exception of 2009, the service charges will be collected through annual property tax
payments. Due to the lag time between levy and collection, the service charge would first appear on
property tax statements in Fall 2009 for payment in 2010. The service charges would then be
collected in May and October of 2010. In order for district to incur and pay expenses in the
interim, the City will mail invoices to affected property owners in October 2009. The total amount
collected in this manner in 2009 will be 50% of the proposed annual budget.
Is there a cap on the amount of the annual service charges?
Yes, the maximum service charges to be imposed in 2009 and 2010 are outlined in the attached
Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges. Pursuant to the service charge resolution, the annual
service charges may increase or decrease from the maximum authorized budgeted amount in the
preceding year based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St.
Paul area. Such increases or decreases may not fluctuate more than 5% per year (which is the same
for the other five districts in St. Louis Park).
Who determines and controls the annual operating budget?
As with the other five districts, an advisory board consisting of district property owners appointed by
the City Council will be formed to oversee the district’s operation. The advisory board will advise
the City Council in connection with the maintenance and operation of the improvements and the
furnishing of special services in the district. The advisory board will recommend the annual budget to
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
the City Council. It will also make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints
of owners, occupants, and users of property within the district and members of the public.
How will the activities approved by the advisory board be implemented?
The City’s Facilities Maintenance Superintendent will coordinate the advisory board and ensure that
the district’s services are properly implemented.
What is the term of the district? Are there limitations?
The proposed district has a term of 10 years (same as the other five districts) at which time property
owners must formally reapprove the district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City does not have the resources to maintain the proposed streetscape improvements to 36th
Street West over the next ten years without the contribution of neighboring property owners. The
special service district is a valuable instrument to properly maintain the public’s capital investment
for 36th Street West streetscape improvements.
The City owns three parcels in the service district. Although the City is not required to do so, it has
been the practice in other service districts to pay the service charges on the City-owned lots. In this
case, the City’s share of the annual budget would total $2,240.25
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed special service district advances the Vision St. Louis Park goals of promoting and
integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation
where appropriate; as well as, being a connected and engaged community by increasing use of new
and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon City Council approval, a 45-day veto period then begins. Staff will mail notices regarding
City Council’s decision to affected property owners within five days. Staff will mail a copy of the
ordinance to the Commissioner of Revenue within 30 days. Without a veto, the ordinance will be
effective July 30, 2009.
Attachments:
• Ordinance Authorizing Creation of SSD #6 and Summary for Publication
• Resolution Imposing Service Charge
o Proposed List Parcels In Special Service District No. 6 (Exhibit A)
o Proposed Map of Special Service District No. 6 (Exhibit B)
o Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges (Exhibit C)
o Proposed List of Services (Exhibit D)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CREATION OF
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition to establish a special service district pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02 (the "Petition") from the owners of certain property located
adjacent to 36th Street West within an area approximately bounded by Wooddale Avenue to State
Trunk Highway 100. The specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent
thereto; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council (the "City Council") has determined each of
the following:
(A) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property
that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition;
(B) The owners subject to twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the proposed service
charge have signed the Petition;
(C) It is appropriate to establish a special service district; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing concerning the petition to establish a special
service district was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on May 14, 2009 and May 28, 2009.
Additionally, the City mailed notice of the hearing to the owner of record of each parcel within the
area proposed to be included within the special service district. For the purposes of giving such
mailed notice, the notice was sent to those shown on the records of the County Auditor. The City
Council has determined that said notices were published and sent in accordance with the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02. The public hearing was held on June 1,
2009, before the St. Louis Park City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Establishment of District. The City hereby establishes a special service
district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.01 through 428A.101 (the “Act”) consisting
of the properties identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
SECTION 2. Services to be Performed.
2.01 Provision of Services. The City may provide or contract for services in the District;
except, however, that the special services provided shall not include a service that is ordinarily
provided throughout the City from the general fund revenue of the City unless an increased level of
service is provided in the District.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
2.02 Description of Services. The City may provide or contract for the following services:
(a) Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and
streets.
(b) Purchase, installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and
other decorative items for promotion of the District.
(c) Poster and handbill removal.
(d) Repair and maintenance of sidewalks.
(e) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of area-wide security systems.
(f) Coordination of security personnel to supplement regular City personnel.
(g) Purchase, installation, maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area
directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters, newspaper stands, trash receptacles,
information booths, bicycle racks and bicycle storage containers, sculptures,
murals, and other public area art pieces.
(h) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area
trees.
(i) Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting.
(j) Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles.
(k) Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements.
(l) Trash removal and recycling costs.
(m) Purchase, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal of special
signage relating to vehicle and bicycle parking, vehicle and pedestrian
movement, and special events.
(n) Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and
annual flowers and perennials on the public right-of-way.
(o) Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system.
(p) Maintenance and operation of a public transit system.
(q) Promotion and administration.
(r) Maintenance of a reserve fund or capital reserve fund.
(s) Installation, maintenance, and removal of capital improvements.
(t) Snow plowing and snow removal from sidewalks, trails, on-street parking bays
and roads
SECTION 3. Service Charge.
3.01 Petition Requirements. Before taking any action to impose a service charge to pay
the cost of services described in Section 2, owners of 25 percent or more of the land area of property
that would be subject to service charges in the proposed special service district and either: (1) owners
of 25 percent or more of the net tax capacity of property that would be subject to a proposed service
charge, based on net tax capacity; or (2) owners, individuals, and business organizations subject to 25
percent or more of a proposed service charge based on other than net tax capacity file a petition
requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with the City Clerk.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 6
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
3.02 Relationship to Service. The City may impose service charges against properties
located within the District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The City may impose service charges
that are reasonably related to the special services provided. Charges for services shall be as nearly as
possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the
service directly rendered, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types of premises to
which service is furnished, or on any other equitable terms. Taxes and service charges may be levied
pursuant to this ordinance to finance special services ordinarily provided by the City only if the
services are provided in the District at an increased level and, then, only in an amount sufficient to
pay for the increase.
3.03 Limitation of Service Charges. Service charges may only be imposed on property as
authorized by the Act.
SECTION 4. Imposition of Service Charge.
4.01 Public Hearing. Before imposing a service charge in the District, for each calendar
year, the City shall hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a person affected by the District or the
proposed service charge may testify on any issues relevant to the proposed service charge. The
hearing may be adjourned from time to time.
4.02 Notice of Hearing. The City shall give prior notice of the public hearing to impose
service charges required by Section 4.01. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to any
property owner, individual, or business organization subject to the proposed service charge. Notice
of the public hearing shall be given in two (2) separate publications of the City's official newspaper
two weeks apart and the public hearing shall not be held less than three (3) days after the later
publication. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the owner of
record of each parcel of real estate within the District. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice,
owners shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties which are tax
exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are not listed on
the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any practical means, and
mailed notice given them.
4.03 Content of Notice. The notice shall include:
(a) a statement that all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard
at the hearing regarding the proposed service charge;
(b) the estimated cost of improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by service
charges imposed, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining the
improvements during the first year and upon completion of the improvements,
the proposed method and source of financing the improvements, and the
annual cost of operating and maintaining the improvements;
(c) the proposed rate or amount of the proposed service charge to be imposed in
the District during the calendar year and the nature and character of the special
services rendered in the District during the calendar year in which the service
charge is to be collected;
(d) a statement that the petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes have either
been met or do not apply to the proposed service charge; and
(e) if the City is adopting a resolution imposing a service charge for more than one
year, the information required by Section 4.05 below.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 7
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
4.04 Adoption of Resolution. Within six (6) months of the public hearing, the City may
adopt a resolution (the “Resolution”) imposing a service charge within the District not exceeding the
amount or rate expressed in the notice issued under this Section.
4.05 Multi-year Service Charge. The City may adopt a resolution imposing a service
charge for more than one year. The City must give notice of such a resolution by including with the
notice of public hearing required by Section 4.02, and including with the notice mailed with the
adopted resolution the following information:
(a) In the case of improvements constructed within the District, the maximum
service charge to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years
charges imposed to pay for the improvements; and
(b) In the case of operating and maintaining services, the maximum service charges
to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed
to pay for the service, or a statement that the service charges will be imposed
for an indefinite number of years.
The resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year may provide that the maximum
service charge to be imposed in a year will increase or decrease from the maximum amount
authorized in the preceding year based on an indicator of increased cost or a percentage amount
established by the resolution. Each calendar year, a public hearing must be held regarding the
imposed service charge. Notice of the hearing must be given and must be mailed to any individual
or business organization subject to the service charge. The notice must be sent in the manner
specified in Section 4.02. The notice shall include the information specified in Section 4.03(a)
through (d). The purpose of the hearing shall be to allow persons or companies affected by the
service charge to testify on any issue related to the service charge.
SECTION 5. Imposition of Service Charges. Service charges may be imposed on
property within the District at a rate or amount sufficient to produce the revenues required to provide
special services in the District. Except as otherwise provided herein, the service charges imposed shall
be imposed against parcels of real estate within the District in the manner and subject to the
procedures in the Resolution. The service charges shall be imposed annually. Service charges may be
collected in advance of, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the rendering of services to which
the service charges relate.
SECTION 6. Collection of Service Charges.
6.01 Collection. All service charges may be payable and collected at the same time and in
the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. The Resolution may
provide for other means of collecting service charges.
6.02 Penalty and Interest. When service charges are made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, service charges not paid on or before the
applicable due date shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax
amounts not paid by the respective date.
6.03 Due Date. The due date for a service charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to
become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 8
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments. Other service charges imposed may be collected as provided by the Resolution.
SECTION 7. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of service charges collected
exceed the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of
such excess amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under
this ordinance or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
SECTION 8. Advisory Board.
8.01 Composition and Appointment. An advisory board to be known as the Special
Service District Advisory Board consisting of a number of members determined by the City Council,
at its discretion, who are residents of the District or owners (or their representatives) of property
within the District, may be created by the City Council by Resolution. At the time of adopting a
resolution, the City Council may approve a set of By-laws which will govern the advisory board's
activities. The City Council at its discretion may pass a resolution terminating or suspending the
advisory board.
8.02 Role of Board. The advisory board shall advise the City Council in connection with
the construction, maintenance, and operation of improvements and the furnishing of special services
in the District. The advisory board shall recommend an annual budget to the City Council. It shall
make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and
users of property within the District and members of the public. Before the adoption of any
proposal by the City Council to provide services or impose taxes of service charges within the
District, the advisory board of the District shall have an opportunity to review and comment upon
the proposal.
8.03 Removal and Termination. The City Council reserves for itself the right, at its sole
discretion, to remove members of the advisory board, with or without cause, or to disband and
terminate the advisory board before the expiration of the District.
SECTION 9. Veto Powers.
9.01 Notice of Veto Right. Within five (5) days after adoption of the ordinance
establishing the District or a resolution imposing a service charge, the City shall mail a summary of
the ordinance or resolution to the owner of each parcel included within the District and any
individual or business organization subject to the service charge. For the purpose of giving such
mailed notice, owners shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties
which are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are
not listed on the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any practical
means, and mailed notice given them.
9.02 Content of Notice. The notice must state that the owner, business, or person subject
to the service charge has the right to veto the ordinance or resolution by filing the required number
of objections with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The notice
must also state that a copy of the ordinance or resolution is on file with the City Clerk.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 9
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
9.03 Requirements for Veto.
(a) Veto of Ordinance. If owners of 35 percent or more of the land area in the
district subject to the service charge based on net tax capacity or owners,
individuals, and business organizations subject to 35 percent or more of the
service charges to be imposed in the district, file an objection to the ordinance
adopted by the city under section 428A.02 with the city clerk before the
effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance does not become effective.
(b) Veto of Resolution - Net Tax Capacity. If the owners of thirty-five percent
(35%) or more of the land area in the District subject to a service charge based
upon net tax capacity or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net
tax capacity in the District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity
file an objection to the resolution imposing a service charge based upon net tax
capacity with the City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the
resolution does not become effective.
(c) Veto of Resolution - Other Basis. If owners, individuals, and business
organizations subject to 35 percent or more of the service charges to be
imposed in the district file an objection to the resolution adopted imposing a
service charge on a basis other than net tax capacity under section 428A.03
with the city clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the resolution
does not become effective. In the event of a veto, no district shall be established
during the current calendar year and until a petition meeting the qualifications
set forth in this subdivision for a veto has been filed.
9.04 Effect of Veto. In the event of a veto, no district shall be established during the
current calendar year and until a petition meeting the requirements set forth in this Section for a
veto has been filed.
SECTION 10. Exclusion from Petition Requirements and Veto Power. The petition
requirements of the Act do not apply to second or subsequent years' action to impose service charges
under Section 4. The right of owners and those subject to a service charge to veto a resolution in
Section 9 does not apply to second or subsequent years' applications of a service charge that is
authorized to be in effect for more than one year under a resolution that has not been vetoed for the
first year's application.
SECTION 11. Enlargement of District. Boundaries of the District may be enlarged only
after petition, hearing and notices as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Notice must be served in the
original District and in the area proposed to be added to the District. The petition to enlarge the
District must include a request for the imposition of service charges sufficient to provide services to
the property. Petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.08 and the veto power of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.09 shall only apply to owners in the area proposed to be added to
the District.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 10
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
SECTION 12. Definitions and Construction. The terms used herein shall be defined as
provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A and this ordinance shall be construed consistently
therewith.
SECTION 13. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th)
day following adoption, which effective date shall be July 30, 2009.
First Reading June 1, 2009
Second Reading June 15, 2009
Date of Publication June 25, 2009
Date Ordinance takes effect July 30, 2009
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 11
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “A”
Parcels in Special Service District No. 6
PIN Address Owner
16-117-21-34-0027 3601 Wooddale Ave The Rottlund Company Inc
16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W SLP Harmony Marketplace LLC
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC
16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc
16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc
16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Arnold R Bloomquist
16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner
16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LJR of Minnesota Ltd Partnership
16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner
16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC
16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC
16-117-21-34-0001 5810 37th St W The Rottlund Co Inc
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 12
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “B”
Boundaries of Special Service District No. 6
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 13
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.____-09
ORDINANCE CREATING SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
36th Street West between Wooddale Avenue and State Trunk Highway 100
This ordinance states that a Special Service District will be created for 36th Street West between
Wooddale Avenue and State Trunk Highway 100. The ordinance establishes the Special Service
District boundary, lists the properties that will be included in the district, and describes the services
that may be provided in the District.
This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: June 25, 2009
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 14
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SERVICE CHARGE
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. ____-09, (the “Ordinance”) the City created Special
Service District No. 6 for certain property located adjacent to 36th Street West between Wooddale
Avenue and State Trunk Highway 100. The specific properties included within this area are
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
1.02 The City has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service
charge from the owners of property within the District (the "Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) owners of twenty-five percent (25%) or more land area of property that would
be subject to service charges in the proposed special service district have signed
the Petition;
(b) owners, individuals, and business organizations subject to 25 percent or more
of a proposed service charge have signed the Petition;
(c) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(d) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 as
commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land zoned
or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public utility
purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(e) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been held.
Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge.
2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the amounts
and against the properties specified on Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Service Charge").
The City imposes a service charge, payable in 2010, for special services provided during the period of
January 2010 - December 2010 in a maximum amount of $24,450. A partial service charge in the
amount of $12,225 will be collected in 2009. The maximum service charge in all subsequent years
will be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04.
2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is for
more than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the year 2019
for taxes payable in said year.
2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for all costs related to the District
shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to 36th Street West for each parcel within the
District and subject to the Service Charge. The estimated annual cost share for parcel is shown in
Exhibit “D”.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 15
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2011, the
maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "Current Year") will increase from the
maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the Current Year (the
"Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of the Current
Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index published for the
date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year Index"). If the
Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the Maximum Service
Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Maximum Service Charge by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is the
Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other government index
or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially
the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised.
Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five percent (5%), the
Maximum Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any Current Year
by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Year's Service Charge.
2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges may be
used by the City for any purposes authorized in the Ordinance. Exhibit “D” contains the services
proposed for funding in 2009 and 2010. The services and the revenues allocated to each service are
subject to change at the discretion of the City.
Section 3. Collection of Service Charges.
3.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time and
in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except that the City
may directly bill owners of parcels located within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the
Service Charge due and payable in calendar year 2009. For purposes of determining the appropriate
tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined without regard to captured or
original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or to the distribution or
contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. Any service charge due and payable
in calendar year 2009 that remains unpaid as of October 31, 2009, shall be payable and collected at the
same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes in the
year 2010.
3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable due date, shall
be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the
respective date.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 16
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
3.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to
become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 4. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed the
cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess
amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this
resolution or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
Section 5. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the
District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge
to prospective purchasers of such parcels.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day
following adoption, which effective date shall be July 30, 2009.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 17
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “A”
Properties Within Proposed
Special Service District No. 6
PIN Address Owner
16-117-21-34-0027 3601 Wooddale Ave The Rottlund Company Inc
16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W SLP Harmony Marketplace LLC
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC
16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc
16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc
16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Arnold R Bloomquist
16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner
16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St Louis Park
16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LJR of Minnesota Ltd Partnership
16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner
16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC
16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC
16-117-21-34-0001 5810 37th St W The Rottlund Co Inc
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 18
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “B”
Proposed Boundary
Special Service District No. 6
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 19
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “C”
Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges
Special Service District No. 6
City of St. Louis Park
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
Service Item Annual Cost
General Supplies $400
Landscape Materials $2,000
Special Service District Management Fees $2,500
Site Maintenance $1,000
Banner Install/Repair $1,000
Irrigation Service $3,500
Decorative Lighting Install $3,500
Landscape Service $9,000
Legal $150
Public Liability $400
Infrastructure Repair $1,000
TOTAL $24,450
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST SHARE
Address Owner Front
Feet
% Total
Frontage
2009
Service
Charge
2010
Service
Charge
3601 Wooddale Ave The Rottlund Company Inc 374 17.31%$2,115.79 $4,231.57
5600 36th St W SLP Harmony Marketplace LLC 350 16.20%$1,982.11 $3,964.21
5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC 333 15.41%$1,883.84 $3,767.68
5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc 198 9.16%$1,120.12 $2,240.24
5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc 198 9.16%$1,120.12 $2,240.24
5721 36th St W Arnold R Bloomquist 139 6.43%$786.35 $1,572.70
5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner 125 5.78%$707.15 $1,414.30
3575 Wooddale Ave City of St Louis Park 66 3.06%$373.37 $746.75
5814 36th St W City of St Louis Park 66 3.05%$373.37 $746.75
5816 36th St W City of St Louis Park 66 3.05%$373.37 $746.75
5724 36th St W LJR of Minnesota Ltd Partnership 66 3.05%$373.37 $746.75
5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner 66 3.05%$373.37 $746.75
5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC 66 3.05%$373.37 $746.75
3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC 48 2.22%$269.28 $538.56
5810 37th St W The Rottlund Company Inc 0 0.00%$0.00 $0.00
TOTAL 2,161 100.00%$12,225.00 $24,450.00
Notes:
1. The cost allocation formula is based upon linear street front footage.
2. The” 2009 Service Charge” is a partial service charge (half of the estimated annual Service District Budget) to pay
any expenses incurred before special assessments are paid in 2010. The City will mail invoices to property owners to
collect the 2009 Service Charge. The 2009 Service Charge will be invoiced in October 2009.
3. The “2010 Service Charge” shown above is the estimated charge based on the 2009 Service District Budget. The
actual 2010 Service Charge and charges for future years are subject to change based on the annual Service District
Budget and Service Charge Resolution approval. The cost allocation formula is based upon street front footage.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4c) Page 20
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 6 – 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100
EXHIBIT “D”
Proposed Services List
Special Service District No. 6
City of St. Louis Park
Services to be Performed
Description of Services. The City may provide or contract for the following services in Special Service
District No. 6:
• Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and streets
• Installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and other decorative items for
promotion of the District
• Poster and handbill removal
• Repair and maintenance of sidewalks
• Maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters,
newspaper stands, trash receptacles, information booths, bicycle racks
• Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area trees
• Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting
• Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles
• Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements
• Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and annual flowers
and perennials on the public right-of-way
• Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system
• Administration
• Maintenance of a reserve fund for operations
• Maintenance of capital improvements
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment to be administered
by Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to authorize the St. Louis Park Police Department to participate in a mutual
aid pact with other Hennepin County Law Enforcement agencies for purposes of sharing resources
when requests for assistance are made or received by participating agencies?
BACKGROUND:
The Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association tasked a Mutual Aid Committee with updating
and revising the mutual aid pact which was originally created in 1968 and most recently revised in
2001. The general purpose of the pact is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources with
other agencies in Hennepin County. The agreement specifically allows a requesting party to select
the resources that best meet the needs of a given situation. The decision as to when to invoke
mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion of the requesting or responding party.
Management of a mutual aid situation specifically remains under the control of the requesting party.
The St. Louis Park Police Department historically has both requested and responded to requests for
mutual aid in Hennepin County. This is often the most timely and cost effective way to apply the
appropriate resources to an incident or event. In addition to major events and large incidents,
mutual aid can also be used to address lower profile resource needs. For example, when the David
Day funeral services were held in Morris, Minnesota, several years ago, the Hennepin County
Sheriff’s Department provided deputies to assist in providing police service for the entire day. This
allowed the majority of our officers to attend the funeral, and these deputies were provided at no
cost to us.
The only significant change contained in this agreement is the creation of an online database called
RAPID. Participating agencies will be asked to enter and update resources which are available for
mutual aid requests so that agencies in need of mutual aid can quickly determine who to ask for
what.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
The effective date for the new agreement will be July 1, 2009. Authorizing participation in this new
agreement effective July 1, 2009, will mean that our participation in the previous agreement will
cease on July 1, 2009. Our City Attorney has reviewed this agreement.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Because our requests for mutual aid tend to be generally proportional to the requests for mutual aid
we receive, the resources we provide and receive will normally offset each other.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and
Equipment of July 1, 2009
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
Passed by all entities July 1, 2009
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT OF JULY 1, 2009
From the Hennepin County Chief’s of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has previously approved and participated in a mutual
aid agreement between the police agencies within Hennepin County to provide cooperative use of
police personnel and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the participating government units have determined that it is advisable to
clarify and update the language of that agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of St. Louis Park, that the Joint
and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment, (“Agreement”)
dated July 1, 2009, from the Hennepin County Chief’s of Police Association, be approved and that
the City of St. Louis Park is withdrawing from the previous Hennepin County Mutual Aid
Agreement on the effective date in the new agreement, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park as a participating member
of the Agreement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
HENNEPIN COUNTY
CHIEF’S OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
MUTUAL AID PACT
Updated July 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 1
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 3
I. GENERAL PURPOSE 3
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS 3
III. PARTIES 4
IV. PROCEDURE 4
V. LIABILITY 6
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE _____ 7
VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 7
RESOLUTION (Sample) _8
SIGNATURE PAGE (Sample) _9
Meeting of June 15, 2009 Page 5
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
MUTUAL AID PACT
Effective July 1, 2009
FOREWORD
The Mutual Aid Committee of the Hennepin County Chief’s of Police Association was tasked with
revising and updating the mutual aid pact among all the police agencies of Hennepin County. The
original pact was created in 1968 with the various agencies joining the pact throughout the years.
Many provisions of the original pact were continued into the new pact. The Joint and Cooperative
Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment in Hennepin County (“Joint
Powers Agreement”) was updated to reflect accurately the procedures, address current issues and
enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each other. Each agency is responsible for
entering and updating available agency resources on line in the RAPID Database.
The general purpose of the pact is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources with other
agencies in Hennepin County. The Joint Powers Agreement specifically allows a requesting party to
select the resources that best meets the needs of a given situation. A requesting party may call upon
any other participating party for mutual aid. There is no requirement to make requests through a
particular party. In addition, the Joint Powers Agreement should not be interpreted as restrictive in
providing resources to deal with only major catastrophic situations. Participating parties can utilize
the resources for many reasons including routine circumstances such as training efforts and back-up
patrol service. This pact provides the flexibility for all agencies to use the resources located among all
participating parties in Hennepin County.
The decision as to when to invoke mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion of the
requesting or responding party. Each agency should acquaint supervisory Personnel with any
internal procedures used for mutual aid. While the Joint Powers Agreement does not require
particular words or actions to initiate mutual aid, agencies should be clear about whether mutual aid
was requested and what type of assistance is being provided. Furthermore, each officer within a
department should have a basic familiarity with mutual aid, the responsibilities when reporting to
another agency and the protections afforded under the agency’s worker’s compensation.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
Management of a mutual aid situation specifically remains under the control of the requesting party.
The sending party retains direction and control of any Personnel provided. Yet, the sending party
must coordinate with the requesting party the law enforcement assistance provided.
Time commitments for mutual aid requests: While there is no hard and fast time limit, the
commitment of resources can be taxing on agencies. In addition, in some situations, an advantage
can be gained by ending a mutual aid request and entering into some contractual assistance.
Especially when the law enforcement costs need to be tracked or can be recovered from other
sources.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff”) has again volunteered to serve as the
administrative coordinator of the pact. As communities adopt the Joint Powers Agreement, the
appropriate documentation and signature page need to be forwarded to the Sheriff.
The participating parties to this agreement are solely responsible to update their available resources
in the RAPID Database.
The effective date for the new Joint Powers Agreement is July 1st, 2009. This date was established
to allow enough time for agencies to receive the appropriate authority and to provide some finality
between the old pact and the new pact. When a party elects to enter into the new Joint Powers
Agreement, their participation in the former pact will cease on July 1st, 2009. Some agencies may
elect not to participate in this pact; those agencies would be bound under other mutual aid
agreements or state statutes.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT
I. GENERAL PURPOSE
The general purpose of this Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement
Personnel and Equipment (“Agreement”) is to provide a means by which a Party to this
Agreement may request and obtain Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties when the
Party deems such assistance necessary. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.59, which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers
common to the Parties.
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this section shall have the
meanings:
Subd. 1. "Eligible Party” means a governmental unit that is permitted to become a Party to
this agreement, at its own option. The Eligible Parties are the County of Hennepin and
every governmental unit authorized to exercise police powers within the County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Subd. 2. "Law Enforcement Assistance” means equipment and Personnel, including but not
limited to, licensed peace officers and non-licensed Personnel.
Subd. 3. "Party” means a governmental unit that elects to participate in this Agreement.
Subd. 4. "Requesting Official” means a person who is designated by the Requesting Party to
request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 8
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
Subd. 5. "Requesting Party” means a Party that requests Law Enforcement Assistance from
other Parties.
Subd. 6. "Sending Official” means a person who is designated by a Party to determine
whether and to what extent that Party should provide Law Enforcement Assistance to a
Requesting Party.
Subd. 7. "Sending Party” means a Party that provides Law Enforcement Assistance to a
Requesting Party.
Subd. 8. “Sheriff” means the Hennepin County Sheriff or designee.
Subd. 9. “RAPID” means the resource database available at rapidresource.org.
III. PARTIES
The Parties to this Agreement shall consist of as many Eligible Parties that approve this
Agreement and execute a separate signature page to become Parties. Upon approval, the
executed signature page of this Agreement shall be sent to the Sheriff along with a certified
copy of the documentation evidencing approval.
Approval of this Agreement by a Party shall be evidenced by:
♦ for a municipality, a resolution adopted by the governing body, or
♦ for a non-municipality, a resolution adopted by the governing body or a letter executed by an official with
sufficient authority to bind that party which recites the basis of that authority.
IV. PROCEDURE
Subd. 1. Each Party shall designate, and keep on file with the Sheriff, the name of the
person(s) of that Party who shall be its Requesting Official and Sending Official. A Party
may designate the same person as both the Requesting Official and the Sending Official.
Also, a Party may designate alternate persons to act in the absence of an official.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 9
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
Subd. 2. Whenever, in the opinion of a Requesting Official of a Party, there is a need for
Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties, such Requesting Official may, at their
discretion, call upon the Sending Official of any other Party to furnish Law Enforcement
Assistance to and within the boundaries of the Requesting Party.
Subd. 3. Upon the receipt of a request for Law Enforcement Assistance from a Party, the
Sending Official may authorize and direct Personnel of the Sending Party to provide Law
Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party. Whether the Sending Party provides such
Law Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party and, if so, to what extent such Law
Enforcement Assistance is provided shall be determined solely by the Sending Official
(subject to such supervision and direction as may be applicable within the governmental
structure of the Party by which they are employed). Failure to provide Law Enforcement
Assistance will not result in liability to a Party.
Subd. 4. When a Sending Party provides Law Enforcement Assistance under the terms of
this agreement, it may in turn request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties as
"back-up" during the time that such Law Enforcement Assistance is provided.
Subd. 5. Whenever a Sending Party has provided Law Enforcement Assistance to a
Requesting Party, the Sending Official may at any time recall such Law Enforcement
Assistance or any part thereof, if the Sending Official in their best judgment deems such
recall necessary to provide for the best interests of their community. Such action will not
result in liability to any Party.
Subd. 6. The Requesting Party shall be in command of all situations where Law
Enforcement Assistance is requested. The personnel and equipment of the Responding Party
shall be under the direction and control of the Requesting Party until the Responding Party
withdraws assistance.
Subd. 7. A Sending Party shall demand no charges or costs for Law Enforcement Assistance
rendered under this Agreement.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 10
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
V. LIABILITY
Liability for Injury or Damage to Responding Party’s Personnel or Equipment
Each party shall be responsible for its own personnel, equipment and for injuries or death to
any such personnel or damage to any such equipment. Responding personnel shall be
deemed to be performing their regular duties for each respective Responding Party.
Worker’s Compensation: Each party will maintain workers’ compensation insurance or self-
insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance pursuant
to this Agreement. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any workers’
compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the
injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers,
employees or volunteers.
Damage to Equipment: Each party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own
equipment. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any damages to or loss of
its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence
of any other party or its officers, employees or volunteers.
Liability for Injury to Third Parties or Property Damage of Third Parties
The Requesting Party agrees to indemnify and defend against any claims brought or actions
filed against a Responding Party or any officers, employees, or volunteers of a Responding
Party for injury or death to any third person or persons or damage to the property of third
persons arising out of the performance and provision of assistance pursuant to the
Agreement. Under no circumstances shall a Requesting Party be required to pay, on behalf
of itself and other parties, any amounts in excess of the limits of liability established in
Minnesota Statutes. For instance, under no circumstances shall a City or County party be
required to pay on behalf of itself or another party any amounts in excess of the limits on
liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The
limits of liability for the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum
amount of liability for a party. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is
to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among the parties and to permit
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 11
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
liability claims against the parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single
attorney. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constitute a waiver of any immunities
and privileges from liability available under federal law or the laws of Minnesota.
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall become effective and operative beginning July 1st, 2009, 12:01
A.M., local time, for those Eligible Parties that have provided resolutions and executed
documents to the Sheriff by that date. An Eligible Party may join the Agreement after July
1st, 2009, by providing the necessary documents to the Sheriff.
This Agreement shall continue in force until a Party or this Agreement terminates under the
provisions of Section VII.
Upon the beginning date of this Agreement or any time after the beginning date that an
Eligible Party joins, this Agreement shall supersede, replace and void for the Party the Joint
and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Police Personnel and Equipment, dated 2001, that
provides for mutual aid.
The Sheriff shall maintain a current list of the Parties to this Agreement and, whenever there
is a change, shall notify the designated Sending Officials. The Sheriff shall send a copy of
each Party’s executed signature page to all Parties of this Agreement.
VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
A Party may withdraw at any time upon thirty- (30) days' written notice to the Sheriff. The
Sheriff shall thereupon give notice of such withdrawal, and of the effective date thereof, to all
other parties. Parties that have withdrawn may rejoin after executing the appropriate
resolution and document. This Agreement will terminate when the number of Parties to the
Agreement falls below eleven (11).
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 12
Subject: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF’S OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Joint Powers Agreement to be
executed for the City of St. Louis Park Police Department on this _______ day of June, 2009.
Attest:
City Clerk Mayor
(seal)
City Manager
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2009 Recovery Act - Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grant
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the
United States Department of Energy for 2009 Recovery Act – Energy & Efficiency Conversation
Block Grant – Formula Grants (EECBG) and for the city to administer the grant funding and act as
the fiscal agent for the formula funds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to submit a grant application in the amount of $198,300 for lighting retrofits
at the Police Department and traffic/pedestrian signal light upgrades?
BACKGROUND:
The EECBG program was created in December 2007 and funded in February 2009 through the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). The program is designed to help U.S. cities and
territories, counties, Indian tribes, and states achieve energy efficiency by developing and
implementing energy conservation projects and programs that improve energy efficiencies and
reduce consumption.
St. Louis Park has been notified by the Department of Energy (DOE) that the city will receive
$198,300 in EECBG formula funding. Staff proposes that the city use the grant funds to become
more energy efficient by retrofitting lighting fixtures in the police department and upgrading traffic
signals and pedestrian count-down timers with LED lights. Once the project is complete, the city
could realize $25,000 annually in energy savings.
The EECBG grant deadline is June 25, 2009 and the DOE expects the review process to last 90 –
120 days. Once approved, the funds would be released to the city approximately 30 days from
award notification. Assuming the DOE process stays on schedule, the city could start work on the
project by late fall/early winter.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EECBG funding allotment is based on a formula developed by the DOE. St. Louis Park’s
portion is $198,300. In addition, the LED lights and the lighting retrofit will be eligible for rebates
from Xcel so that staff can further leverage the grant funds. The lighting retrofits for the police
station and traffic/pedestrian light upgrades can be accomplished with grant and rebate funds.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grants
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with the City’s Strategic Direction of - St. Louis Park is committed to being
a leader in environmental stewardship by increasing environmental consciousness and responsibilities
in all areas of city business.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grants
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, TO
SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY FOR 2009 RECOVERY ACT ENERGY & EFFICIENCY COMMUNITY
BLOCK GRANT FORMULA GRANTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a Municipal Corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Public Law
111-5, appropriated funding for the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue/award formula based
grants to states, U.S. territories, units of local government, and Indian tribes under the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is submitting a grant application to the United
States Department of Energy for the 2009 Recovery Act Energy and Efficiency Conversation Block
Grant Formula Grants; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park will receive grant funds in the amount of $198,300
once the Department of Energy approves the city’s grant application; and
WHEREAS, the city will serve as the fiscal agent and will provide financial administrative
services necessary for the administration of the grant and will assure that all laborers and mechanics
on projects funded through the grant are paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on
projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of title
40, United States Code (Davis-Bacon Act).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of St. Louis Park hereby
authorizes the City Manager to submit an application to the Department of Energy for the 2009
Recovery Act Energy & Efficiency Conversation Block Grant Formula Grants.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Acceptance of Donation from Nordic Ware.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution accepting a donation from Nordic Ware in the amount of $20,000 for
relocating the beehive and improvements to Lilac Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
Nordic Ware is graciously donating an amount of $20,000. The donation is given with the
restriction that it be used to help pay for the relocation of the beehive and improvements to Lilac
Park (also known as Roadside Park)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will assist in the relocation of the beehive and improvements to Lilac Park
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The donation will assist us in preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation from Nordic Ware
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM NORDIC WARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000
FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT LILAC PARK
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Nordic Ware desires to assist in the relocation of the beehive and
improvements to Lilac Park with a donation of $20,000; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Nordic Ware with the understanding that it
must be used to relocate the beehive and allow for improvements to be made to Lilac Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4g
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee
Fitzgerald, Trinicia Hill
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for March, 2009
The Board minutes of March 11, 2009 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Proposed Use of Recovery and Reinvestment Act Capital Funds
Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA was awarded an additional allocation of
$274,471 in CFP funds, and that the HA plans to allocate the entire amount of
funds toward replacement of all of the patio doors at Hamilton House. There are
103 doors to replace; the additional funds will cover approximately 80 patio doors,
and the remaining doors will be funded through the 2008/2009 CFP grant.
Discussion took place regarding warranty coverage on the patio doors.
Commissioner Hill moved to approve the proposed use of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Capital Fund Allocation, in the amount of $274,471, for
replacement of approximately 80 patio doors at Hamilton House. Commissioner
Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
2
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes April 15, 2009
b. Public Housing and Section 8 Collection Loss Write-Off, Resolution No. 582
Ms. Klesk reported that there is a total of $18,146.80 in Public Housing collection
loss write-offs, and $2,560 in Section 8 write-offs for FYE March 31, 2009.
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve Resolution No. 582 of the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Designating Damages, Unpaid Rents, and
Other Charges as Collection Losses in the Public Housing and Section 8 Programs.
Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
c. FYE 2009 Action Plan: Final Update
Ms. Schnitker briefly reviewed the HA’s FYE 2009 Action Plan.
d. Live Where You Work Program Summary – Final Draft
Ms. Schnitker presented the final draft of the Live Where You Work Employee
Homebuyer Assistance Program.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List April – 2009
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for April – 2009
2. West Hennepin Land Trust – Two pending single family purchases, update
on line-of-credit
3. Insurance premium cost for umbrella coverage – Follow-Up
After discussion, it was decided to revisit the issue when the HA’s insurance
coverage is renewed in January 2010. Commissioner Fitzgerald said that
Minneapolis PHA’s requirement for its contractor umbrella coverage is
considerably lower than the HA’s.
4. Scattered site houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
5. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4h
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee Fitzgerald,
Trinicia Hill, Justin Kaufman
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Teresa Schlegel, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. Commissioner Fitzgerald arrived at 5:04 p.m.
Ms. Schnitker introduced Justin Kaufman, HA Commissioner appointed March 23, 2009.
2. Approval of Minutes for April, 2009
The Board minutes of April 15, 2009 were unanimously approved with the following
amendment to paragraph 7.b.3., which is changed to read, “Commissioner Fitzgerald said that
Minneapolis PHA’s requirement for its contractor umbrella coverage is considerably lower than
the HA’s.”
3. Hearings
a. Public Hearing – Approval of Five Year Agency Plan
Ms. Schnitker reported on the HA’s Five Year Agency Plan. It was noted that the
CFP will be changing year to year. Commissioner Courtney opened the Public Hearing
at 5:16 p.m. Since no one was present, Commissioner Courtney closed the Public
Hearing at 5:17 p.m.
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes May 13, 2009
6. New Business
a. Approval of Five Year Agency Plan, Resolution No. 583
Ms. Schnitker explained that following approval of Resolution No. 583, the Plan will be
submitted to HUD for their review and approval, and a copy of the Plan will continue to
be available for public viewing at City Hall and Hamilton House. Commissioner
Fitzgerald moved to approve Resolution No 583, PHA Certifications of Compliance
with the PHA Plan and Related Regulations: Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA
5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the
motion passed 5-0.
b. Five Year Agency Plan Civil Rights Certification and Board Resolution No. 584
Ms. Schnitker explained the HA must make a civil rights certification in accordance with
Section 5A(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as amended by Section 2702 of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Commissioner Kaufman inquired if any impediments
to fair housing choice had been identified and how they were addressed. Ms. Schnitker
replied that the HA was not aware of any impediments, but the last assessment was from
1999, and another assessment will be done in the near future. Commissioner Fillbrandt
moved to authorize execution and submission of the Civil Rights Certification and Board
Resolution No. 584, and Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed
5-0.
c. Approval of Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) FYE 033109
Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA received a SEMAP score of 104% for FYE 2009 and
continues to retain high performer status. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve
the execution and transmission of HUD-Form 52648, Section 8 Management
Assessment Program (SEMAP) Certification. Commissioner Kaufman seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Capital Improvement Award and Approval of Minnetonka Boulevard Contract
Ms. Schlegel reported that the HA was awarded $205,442 in 2007 CFP funds. The HA
desires to enter into a contract with Merit Building Co., Inc. to replace siding and
windows, and build a new attached garage at the HA property located at 6000
Minnetonka Boulevard, utilizing a portion of these funds. Four bids were received, with
Merit Building submitting the lowest bid for the work. A discussion ensued regarding
the HA’s bidding and procurement policies and the possibility of changing them. Staff
will perform research and provide the Board with further information on this issue at a
future date. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve a contract with Merit Building
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes May 13, 2009
Co., Inc. for a base bid of $96,600, and alternate #1 for $2,800, totaling $99,400, for
replacement of windows and siding, and construction of a new attached garage at 6000
Minnetonka Boulevard. Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion
passed 5-0.
e. Review and Adoption of FYE 2010 Action Plan
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the FYE 2010 Action Plan. After brief discussion, Commissioner
Fillbrandt moved to adopt the Fiscal Year End 2010 Action Plan, and Commissioner
Kaufman seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List May – 2009
b. Communications
Ms. Schnitker inquired if the Commissioners would prefer submitting an informative
written report annually to City Council on the activities of the HA Board, or would
rather meet with the City Council. It was decided to continue to submit the written
report.
1. Monthly Report for May – 2009
2. Scattered site houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period May 30 through June 5, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
138.65STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
138.65
1,514.16PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
1,514.16
7,800.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP
2,400.00WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
2,400.00SEWER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
12,600.00
4,001.35APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEACS FIREHOUSE SOLUTIONS
4,001.35
2,101.54EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONADLER, LAURA
2,101.54
320.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAL'S FAN BALANCING SERVICES
320.00
45.00TENNISOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALDRICH, LOREN
45.00
91.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
91.19
68.85PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
107.06VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
73.59WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
73.58SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
323.08
275.40WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATANDERSON, SCOTT
23.74WATER UTILITY G&A MEETING EXPENSE
23.74SEWER UTILITY G&A MEETING EXPENSE
30.98STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
23.76STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MEETING EXPENSE
377.62
448.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
448.50
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,665.77REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMANS
95.62BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,761.39
3,351.82TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTBAILEY NURSERIES INC
3,351.82
319.50TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEBARTLETT TREE EXPERT CO, F.A.
319.50
1,482.48ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
1,482.48
121.09WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBLOUNT, VONNIE
121.09
25.00SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATBREDENBERG, JASON
25.00
3,450.60SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
3,450.60
3,900.00LIVE WHERE YOU WORK PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
3,900.00
68.14GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
63.54WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
131.68
27.85-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
23.04ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
166.91HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.60HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
244.70HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
50.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
45.12HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
199.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
720.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
290.02DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
809.31FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
59.99FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
28.86COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
169.31OFFICE EQUIP MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
108.20INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.74ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
253.89CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
300.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,564.84
11,890.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSCOATES ROOFING INC
11,890.00
2,499.42CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
2,499.42
8,381.20EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
8,381.20
237.26WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
237.26
1,132.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONCURRAN-BAKKEN, ERIC
1,132.00
419.58GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
419.58
61.64SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSDEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC
61.64
2,975.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MAINTENANCEDRIVEWAY DESIGN
2,975.00
185.70ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
185.70
1,000.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEDWARD MUSIC, BRUCE
1,000.00
2,100.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACE G&A OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTELERT & ASSOCIATES
2,100.00
34,068.69SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
34,068.69
429.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
429.92
41.32PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFASTENAL COMPANY
41.32
60.05ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFORCE AMERICA INC
60.05
117.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGAGNER, NANCY
117.00
305.00FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
305.00
56.91PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYGRAFIX SHOPPE
56.91
23.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERGRAINGER INC, WW
23.90
10,150.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
10,150.00
45.00TENNISOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMPEL, LARRY
45.00
4,384.74WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENTHANSEN INFORMATION TECH
4,384.74SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
4,384.74STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
13,154.22
25.00SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATHANSEN, SHANNON
25.00
1,142.32AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
7,701.41WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8,843.73
275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
275.00
4,240.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,240.00
2,193.20SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,193.20
1,600.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
1,600.00
110.09PAINTINGBLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
110.09
550.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHISLOP, DANIEL
550.00
25.61ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
90.35BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
6.35BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
69.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
192.16
525.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
525.00
28.54WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDELCO
28.54
1.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
1.09
446.74PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
25.75WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
389.67WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
862.16
5.39-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSKINGSCOTE CHEMICALS INC
88.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.89
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12,163.50CE INSPECTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
12,163.50
177.62BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEKRUGE-AIR INC
177.62
9.17ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESKRZESOWIAK, SARAH
9.17
203.00HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAININGLARSEN, KATHY
148.61HOUSING REHAB G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
351.61
2,318.002008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESLEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES
2,318.00
782.12EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONLINDBLOM, MIKE
782.12
315.00ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
315.00
900.00WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
900.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,800.00
799.10PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
799.10
265.44SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERMILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORP
265.44
1,070.64GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CONWAY
1,070.64
240.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMINNESOTA REVENUE
240.00
35.06SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSMINVALCO INC
35.06
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
103.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC
103.26
2,583.00SOFTBALLSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMRPA
2,583.00
359.88PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
359.88
16.18H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
733.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
51.45BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
801.14
260.93BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSNORTHERN PERENNIALS INC
260.93
101.75STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'CONNOR, CHARLES
101.75
185.52ENGINEERING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOCE
185.52
129.40ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
53.87SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
183.27
131.87NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSOFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG
62.86VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE
4,168.33FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONE
100.44NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
753.31COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
5,216.81
356.33PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
53.25SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
409.58
5,860.68COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARKTACULAR
5,860.68
250.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPENKERT, JEREMY
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
250.00
10.71PLUMBING MTCE GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
17.06OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
79.03PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
9.99SAFETY SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE
15.19TRAININGMEETING EXPENSE
11.49TRAININGBUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
5.32ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
47.21ENGINEERING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
2,500.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PETTY
2,696.00
95.74PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
95.74
224.34WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
224.34SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
224.33SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
224.33STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
897.34
825.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
825.00
2,411.16TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
2,411.16
227.91BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPUMP & METER SERVICE
227.91
74,233.81WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
74,233.81
12,913.26PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUIRING EXCAVATING LLC
12,913.26
13,788.90SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHERREHRIG PACIFIC CO
13,788.90
1,194.71EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRUD, JOSEPH
1,194.71
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,842.95STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESA-AG INC
4,842.95
19,864.95PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
19,864.95
770.21PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
770.21
17.74PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSPS COMPANIES INC
28.21WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.95
16,795.98PE INVES/REV/PERMITS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
16,795.98
48.80TENNISPROGRAM REVENUESWEDBERG, BETH
48.80
4.48WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
4.48
3,250.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
3,250.00
852.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOMAR ELECTRONICS
52.02-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
800.32
728.34WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICETOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
728.33SEWER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
728.33STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,185.00
96.21GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
96.21
55.34PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
55.34
102.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
6/10/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:17:47R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
6/5/2009 -5/30/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
102.51
65.19WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
65.19
23,018.83WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
23,018.83
358.43GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING DISCOUNT BLINDS
358.43
1,217.92WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESWEBER ELECTRIC
96.00REILLY BUDGET BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
483.36SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,797.28
282.23ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWELD-KRAFT
282.23
149,096.50WESTMORELAND HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWESTMORELAND HILLS OWNER ASSN
149,096.50
53.01PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYWHEELER'S AUTOBODY SUPPLY
3.24-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
49.77
270.18AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
270.18
Report Totals 522,660.18
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Report - W. 36th Street Streetscape - Project 2008-2600.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No.
2008-2600, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue with the implementation of this project?
BACKGROUND:
In a report dated May 11, 2009, the City Council was provided an update on the status of the above
project. On June 1, 2009, the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance creating
Special Service District #6 and scheduled the 2nd reading of the ordinance for June 15, 2009.
The proposed streetscape improvements on 36th Street between Wooddale Avenue North and
Highway 100 have been programmed for construction this year. However, approval of the project
has been conditioned on establishing a Special Service District to provide for the long term
maintenance of such streetscape facilities. A lengthy public process, culminating with the first
reading of an ordinance allowing for the creation of SSD #6 on June 1, now allows for advancing
this project.
The project design engineer (SRF) has completed the streetscape design in a manner that will
provide for minimal or basic streetscape improvements that can best work with present and future
needs, particularly after the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange project is completed and future traffic
patterns are better known. The streetscape design will also allow for the installation of a future traffic
signal at W. 36th Street and Xenwood Avenue as programmed in the Capital Improvement Program.
At this time, the signal is not warranted, and so is not proposed to be installed at this time.
However, design of the signal system itself has been substantially completed, and can be constructed
at any time in the future when deemed necessary.
ANALYSIS:
In conjunction with the Hoigaard Village Development, the City of St. Louis Park was awarded a
Livable Communities Development Account Grant by the Metropolitan Council. The grant of
$1,500,000 was awarded to pay for several aspects related to the redevelopment of W. 36th Street
(Highway 100 to Wooddale Avenue) in the Elmwood Neighborhood. The grant essentially provides
funding for the following:
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - W. 36th Street Streetscape - Project 2008-2600
1. A regional stormwater pond (now completed) within the Hoigaard Village redevelopment that
serves a portion of the greater Elmwood Neighborhood.
2. Demolition of sidewalk and other structures in the right-of-way in preparation for pedestrian
amenities on W. 36th Street.
3. Construction of new sidewalks, street lighting, benches, bike racks, and other streetscape
amenities along W. 36th Street.
Some of these improvements have already been constructed as part of the Hoigaard Village
redevelopment project. Other proposed improvements on the remainder of W. 36th Street, including
curb bump-outs for on street parking and plantings, are not eligible under the grant.
The Livable Communities grant expires at the end of this year. Therefore, a project must be let this
year if the remaining funds are to be utilized. The following schedule is therefore recommended:
June 15, 2009 City Council Approve Plans and Specifications and
Authorize Advertisement for Bids
June 15, 2009 Special Service District 2nd Reading
July 14, 2009 Open Bids
July 20, 2009 Award Contract
August 1, 2009 Commence Construction
October 15, 2009 Complete Construction
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Capital Improvement Program provides for a total project cost of $1.5 million dollars with
funding from a combination of the Livable Communities Grant and Elmwood District Tax
Increment Financing. With the most recent construction estimates provided by SRF, along with
anticipated engineering and administrative costs, we expect the total project cost to remain within
that amount as shown below. Approximately $832,000 of the grant funds currently remains
unspent. Professional services to date are in the Street Capital Projects Fund but have not yet been
reimbursed by the Elmwood TIF district. These costs and other costs above the grant funds will be
reimbursed by the Elmwood TIF district in future years.
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $1,025,000
Contingencies (10%) 102,000
Engineering & Administrative 265,000
Total $1,392,500
Funding Sources
Livable Communities Grant $ 832,000
Elmwood TIF 560,500
Total $1,392,500
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - W. 36th Street Streetscape - Project 2008-2600
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project will address the following facets of Vision St. Louis Park:
1. Arts and Culture: The project will consider and include a public art element through the project
development and public process. This will contribute to several Vision goals related to Arts and
Culture.
2. Environment: The project will consider the Vision goal of expanding and enhancing green
spaces and parks by incorporating design standards that increase green medians on roadways and
tree planting initiatives.
3. Sidewalks and Trails: The project will contribute to the Vision goal of creating a safe and
efficient bicycle and pedestrian grid.
4. Transportation: The project will incorporate many of the transportation related Vision goals,
including inter-connect of “urban villages”, consideration of transit needs and connections, road
safety, and enhancing aesthetics of key corridors.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - W. 36th Street Streetscape - Project 2008-2600
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-2600
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-2600
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to 36th Street Streetscape Improvements between Wooddale Avenue North
and Highway 100.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2008-2600 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the
Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2008-2600 is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear
not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk,
and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 15, 2009
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution 09-011.
Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for Athletic
Facility Improvements at 2501 Highway 100 South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Proposed is a Major Amendment to a Special Permit. Does the City Council wish to approve or
deny this requested amendment?
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Major Amendment, subject to
conditions.
BACKGROUND:
Proposal:
Proposed are changes to the site including modifications related to stormwater management, wetland
mitigation, tree replacement, and off-street parking.
Background:
Benilde-St Margaret’s (BSM) first submitted a proposal for modifications to its athletic facilities in
2008. That proposal, reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, received final
approval on January 20, 2009. BSM has subsequently reviewed the original proposal in greater
detail and decided that changes are necessary in order to proceed with the project. A majority of the
2008 site plan proposal remains the same. No changes are proposed in relation to issues such as
noise or light pollution, setbacks, site access, or transportation. For background on those issues, a
copy of the January 20, 2009 Staff report to the City Council is attached. In addition, minutes from
the Planning Commission public hearing on the BSM issue from May 20, 2009 are also attached for
review. As noted above, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major
Amendment.
Changes to the site plan in this amendment are the result of modifications to the wetland mitigation
plan and stormwater management system for the site. In the earlier proposal, it was proposed that
stormwater management be handled primarily below-grade in a containment system below the
parking lot. The new site plan, depicted in the attached exhibits, includes an above-ground
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
stormwater pond located near the south property line. The new pond uses space previously
dedicated to additional parking spaces and field five (the south practice field). As a result, the
number of new parking spaces being built on-site has been reduced from 46 to 19, and previously
undisturbed areas of the site will see trees removed for wetland mitigation.
BSM held a meeting with adjacent property owners in April to discuss the proposed site plan
changes. At that meeting, the plans were discussed in detail. The two primary concerns were the
loss of trees from the BSM site and the modifications to the stormwater management system.
Following the April meeting and subsequent meetings with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, BSM reviewed options for site plan modifications to address the concerns of adjacent
property owners. BSM chose to continue with its proposal as presented at the April meeting.
Several property owners residing adjacent to the BSM site spoke about issues related to the BSM
proposal during the May 20, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. Major issues included
stormwater management, parking, floodplain, a continued need for improvement in neighborhood
communications and major concerns related to tree removal.
Special Permit:
Expansion, alteration or modifications to property covered by a Special Permit is permitted under
the Zoning Ordinance. However, the applicant must show that “any nonconformities existing on
the site shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of this chapter to
the extent reasonable and possible…” (Section 36-36-d-4). The existing non-conformity on the site
relates to a field setback adjacent to the south property line. This setback remains as-is; as depicted
on the previous site plans, greater compliance is achieved through the installation of a fence and a
substantial amount of landscape material for screening purposes. There are no other known non-
conformities on the site related to the athletic complex.
Zoning Review:
The basic review of the BSM proposal was completed as part of a previous application and can be
found in the attached Staff report from January 20, 2009 and is still applicable. The current
proposed site plan requires re-evaluating the landscaping, tree replacement, and off-street parking for
conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission’s recommendation of
approval was made without a complete tree survey. Their recommendation assumed that BSM
would do what was necessary to come into compliance with the tree replacement ordinance. Since
Planning Commission review of the proposal in May, BSM has revised their submittal related to tree
replacement and off-street parking.
Landscaping
There are 191 new or transplanted trees proposed in the updated landscape plan. Thirty-nine trees
would be transplanted under the plan, and 152 new trees would be planted on the site. Landscaping
is represented on the attached Sheet L8.0.
The new proposal, revised since the May 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, includes
additional trees as a result of a revised tree replacement calculation. However, the additional trees
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
also represent an improvement to the landscaping on the site. The proposed trees represent a wide
diversity of landscape materials, including oak, hackberry, birch, pine, honey locust and maple trees
that will grow into a substantially improved screening mechanism between adjacent property owners
and the athletic facilities.
Shrubs are not included as part of the landscaping plan. As discussed in the attached Staff report,
shrubs are not necessary on a site of this size. To accomplish this landscaping reduction, BSM is
providing alternative landscaping measures throughout the site. Alternatives include a substantially
greater number of trees than is required, native plantings in stormwater and wetland areas, and
easements for pedestrian and bicycle amenities around the site. Please refer to the attached staff
report for further information related to shrubs and alternative landscaping.
Tree Replacement
Tree replacement has been fully re-evaluated between the Planning Commission meeting and the
preparation of this report. Most applicably, the tree replacement calculations are now more accurate
and include all significant trees on the site – including large cottonwoods that were not considered
significant under the January 20, 2009 approval.
Significant trees: 3,047 caliper inches
Total removal: 1,463 caliper inches
Replacement requirement: 615 caliper inches
Trees planted: 396.5 caliper inches
Trees transplanted: 222 caliper inches
Total: 618.5 caliper inches
BSM planned to install a total of 283 caliper inches under the proposal recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 20, 2009. Upon completion of the revised tree
survey, however, it became clear that additional tree replacement was required. BSM accomplished
this addition to the tree replacement through the addition of a substantial number of new trees
around the new wetland area, to the west of the primary stormwater pond, and to the south of Field
No. 1.
The revised tree replacement plan, found on attached sheets L1.1 and L8.0, meets the requirements
of the City and the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Parking
Parking requirements for high schools are tied to the capacity of the school and the number of
classrooms. While BSM’s application for a Major Amendment proposed substantial improvements
to its athletic fields, landscaping and stormwater management, it does not propose any changes to
the buildings or expansion of the school. Therefore the existing parking requirements, established in
the existing May 1, 2000 Special Permit Amendment, continue to apply and are proposed to be
restated in the conditions of the attached approval resolution.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
In the January Staff report, a fresh calculation of the required parking was undertaken and
concluded that 367 on-site parking spaces should be required. However, more appropriately the
existing Special Permit requirement for a minimum of 400 off-street parking spaces and 44 proof-of-
parking spaces should be continued and is recommended. In addition, the May 1, 2000 condition
stating “If parking should be a problem in the future, the Zoning Administrator may require that the
proof-of-parking be converted to parking” should also continue.
The current BSM site plan proposes 405 on-site spaces and will continue to provide at least 44
proof-of-parking spaces. Details regarding the siting of the proof-of-parking are being completed at
this time. In addition, BSM has a parking agreement with Beth-El Synagogue to share parking.
Beth-El makes available 158 or more parking spaces. This arrangement has greatly improved
parking conditions at BSM.
Parking on the site is as follows:
Parking requirement: 444 off-street spaces
(400 constructed spaces)
(44 proof-of-parking)
On-site parking: 405 spaces
Proof-of-parking: 44 spaces
Sub-total: 449 spaces
Beth-El parking: 158 spaces
Total: 607 spaces
Summary: + 163 spaces
Stormwater Management:
BSM plans to accommodate its stormwater management needs above ground in two ponds. The
proposal approved in January dealt with all stormwater in a below-ground system under the parking
lot. After receiving approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for the
earlier proposal, BSM decided to pursue other alternatives for stormwater runoff.
The primary stormwater pond, located near the east parking lot and field five, will have a normal
water level of 871’ and will have an emergency overflow at 875’. Should the pond reach the
emergency overflow level, it will empty onto the surface of field five and drain to the north and east
into the new wetland area being constructed as part of this project. This pond will handle the
majority of the site’s surface water runoff.
The second stormwater pond is located just east of the proposed field one. This pond will receive
water flowing from the northwest portion of the site. In the case that this pond reaches capacity, it
will flow east into the large wetland area proposed just south of the existing track area, which sends
water to Twin Lake, preventing water from impacting the wetlands in Twin Lake Park or to the
southeast of the BSM site.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and determined it meets the requirements of the City.
The City’s requirements pertain mostly to the quantity of water retained on-site during major storm
events. Other requirements are put in place by the MCWD. BSM has submitted its stormwater
management plans to the MCWD and it appears that the proposal meets all the requirements of the
watershed district. The MCWD will likely provide a final determination on the BSM proposal at its
June 18, 2009 meeting.
Wetland Mitigation:
Wetland mitigation is required any time wetlands are filled or modified within the City. The
MCWD is the responsible governmental unit for wetlands; the City does not directly regulate
wetlands. As part of this proposal, as in the January proposal, BSM intends to fill several degraded
wetlands to expand the parking area and construct the new ‘field one.’ Although wetland mitigation
was part of the plans approved in January, changes in how the wetland mitigation plan will be
applied resulted in impacts to the site plan, requiring the new Major Amendment to the Special
Permit. The wetland changes are the result of impacts to the site plan caused by the addition of
surface stormwater ponds. By modifying how wetland mitigation will occur, additional space was
created on the site for stormwater ponds.
The final wetland mitigation plan must be approved by the MCWD prior to the start of any site
work. The current plan includes wetland mitigation and the construction of a wetland buffer that
will meet the MCWD standards. The wetland mitigation plan also impacts the number of trees
being removed from the site; those areas where trees are planned for removal will be reestablished
with native vegetation and bareroot seedlings which will grow rapidly in size to provide additional
screening.
City / BSM Shared Use History
BSM and the City have a long established tradition of partnering and sharing use of facilities. It
works to the mutual benefit of both organizations. To continue this relationship, we have modified
one of the conditions of approval to clarify that the intent of restrictions on the use of BSM’s
facilities was not to preclude the potential use of BSM’s athletic facilities for City recreation
programs. The revised condition of approval item 5.k.4 in the proposed approval resolution states
that a minor amendment to BSM’s Special Permit will be needed to allow regular use of the its
athletic facilities except for current users, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, temporary, or
emergency situations. The change from the language from January is the addition of the City as an
exception from the requirement for a minor amendment to the Special Permit to allow regular use of
the applicant’s athletic fields. This change will allow for the potential use of BSM fields by the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department. The revised condition will provide for the shared use of facilities
between BSM and the City into the future.
Conditions of Approval:
• May 1, 2000 and earlier: Conditions created as part of the May 1, 2000 approval and those
conditions applying to the site from dates prior to 2000 are continued. However, some of
the conditions are superseded by new conditions set as part of the new resolution.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
Conditions relating to landscaping, for example, no longer apply in the same way as when
they were originally approved in 2000.
• January 20, 2009: Conditions included in the January 20, 2009 resolution have been
included in the new resolution, including conditions related to lighting, sound and noise,
time limitations on field five, and sidewalk and trail easements.
• June 15, 2009: There are some minor changes to the conditions from January, including:
o Additional language clarifying the off-street parking requirements for BSM.
o Further detail related to the creation of a neighborhood committee to enhance the
level of communication between BSM and adjacent property owners.
o Details related to field use by the City through cooperative agreements between BSM
and the City’s Park and Recreation Department.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The modifications to the athletic facilities at Benilde-St. Margaret’s fulfill aspects of several vision
goals. The proposal still calls for the dedication of a new easement along 26th Street and the
Highway 100 frontage road improve the connected network of sidewalks and trails through the
community. Improved water quality measures proposed for the site will decrease the level of
pollutants entering the Twin Lakes watershed, improving the area’s ecological quality and meeting
the vision goal for environmental improvement.
Attachments: Resolution – Rescinding Resolution 09-011
Resolution – Major Amendment to the Special Permit
Draft Minutes – May 20, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report – January 20, 2009 City Council Meeting
Location Map
Site Plans and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. 09-___
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 09-011 ADOPTED ON
JANUARY 20, 2009, RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO
ATHLETIC FACILITIES AT 2501 STATE HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Benilde-St. Margaret’s School made application to the City Council for a
major amendment to the Special Permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
to permit modifications to athletic facilities at 2501 State Highway 100 South having the following
legal description:
That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24
lying east of State Highway No. 100, north of the south 330.00 feet thereof, and
west of the east 450.00 feet thereof; also the west 233.58 feet of the east 450.00 of
the north 500 feet of said South ½ of the Northwest ¼.
Subject to roads.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case Nos. 00-20-SP and 08-45-SP) and the effect of the modifications on the health,
safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 00-057 was continued and restated by Resolution No. 09-011,
adopted on January 20, 2009; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to rescind Resolution No. 09-011.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 09-011 is hereby
rescinded.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 00-057
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO.
00-057 ADOPTED ON MAY 1, 2000, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT
TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO ATHLETIC FACILITIES AT 2501 STATE
HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, has made application to the City Council for
an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code to allow modifications to athletic facilities at 2501 State Highway 100 within a R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal description:
That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24
lying east of State Highway No. 100, north of the south 330.00 feet thereof, and
west of the east 450.00 feet thereof; also the west 233.58 feet of the east 450.00 of
the north 500 feet of said South ½ of the Northwest ¼.
Subject to roads.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos.
00-20-SP, 08-45-SP and 09-12-SP, and the effect of the proposed modifications to athletic facilities
on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a continued special use permit was amended regarding the subject property
pursuant to Resolution No. 00-057 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 1, 2000 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to site plan modifications, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the further amendment of the special permit granted under Resolution No. 00-
057; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to restate the conditions of the permit granted
by Resolution No. 00-057, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions
applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 09-12-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 00-057 is hereby restated
and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit to the subject property
for the purposes of permitting modifications to athletic facilities within the R-1 Single Family
Residential District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
1. That the grading and drainage be constructed and maintained thereafter in accordance with
Exhibit A – Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit B – Sodding, Seeding and Landscape Plan
and all conditions set forth in the City’s Flood Plain Zoning District regulations be satisfied
as specified in Section 14:123.100(2)(a) through (k).
2. That all grading, sodding and seeding be completed by October 15, 1985.
3. The special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 92-42-SP to permit
construction of a pylon sign 19.5 feet in height and to permit a total sign area of 200 square
feet.
4. The special permit shall be amended on May 1, 2000 (Case No. 00-20-SP) to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits C
thru K. Exhibits B and D, landscape plan may be modified as to the exact location of
the arborvitae plantings along the north lot line to most effectively provide screening and
to preserve existing trees. Exhibit B landscape plan may also be modified to move up to
50% of the new bufferyard plantings north of the Princeton Court townhomes to
directly east of the east parking lot, provided this is agreed to by the applicant and
Princeton Court townhomes.
b. Prior to any site work, applicant shall meet the following conditions:
1. Obtain a Watershed District permit and submit copy to City.
2. Applicant shall sign assent form and official exhibits.
c. A building permit is required, which may impose additional conditions.
d. If parking should become a problem in the future, the Zoning Administrator may
required that proof of parking be converted to parking.
e. A five foot building height variance for an auditorium is approved, subject to all
conditions of final approval.
f. The property owner shall grant a trail easement to the City at no cost in a location to be
agreed upon by both parties, if it is determined by the City that a trail is to be
constructed in this area.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
5. The special permit shall be amended on June 15, 2009 to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
b. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1. The property owner shall dedicate at no cost to the City a 10’ easement required
as part of prior approvals along the west frontage road and along 25 ½ Street
West.
2. All required permits shall be obtained, including but not limited to those permits
issued by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
3. The applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee in the form of a
Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow to ensure the installation and survival of all
landscaping materials. The financial guarantee shall be in the amount of 125%
of the cost of installation.
4. The applicant shall establish a committee consisting of three neighboring
property owners residing to the south of the property, three neighboring property
owners residing to the north of the property, and representatives from the
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. The committee shall meet a minimum of two (2)
times per school year to discuss the upcoming athletic schedule and any
outstanding issues raised by either Benilde-St. Margaret’s or adjacent property
owners. The Community Development Director or designee shall be informed
of and may attend committee meetings.
c. The requirements for a minimum of 400 off-street parking spaces and for a minimum of
44 proof-of-parking spaces on-site from the May 1, 2000 approval shall continue.
d. The applicant shall install and maintain a device governing all outdoor amplified sound
systems on the site to be in compliance with the City’s noise regulations.
e. Music played over any outdoor amplified sound system shall be permitted until 10:00
PM for a duration of not more than thirty (30) minutes before any varsity athletic event
or for occasional outdoor events typical of a high school. Neighborhood notification
shall be required for any special outdoor events featuring music.
f. Upon the City’s request due to planned construction of a trail, the property owner shall
grant at no cost to the City a 10’ trail easement along the north property line running
from the cul-de-sac at Westridge Lane to the east and terminating at the northeast corner
of the property. Should the City construct such a trail, the City shall be responsible for
any costs associated with fence or landscaping relocation.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
g. The current application does not include the construction of a bubble or dome on the
property. A major amendment to the Special Permit would be required if a bubble or
dome is proposed in the future.
h. Use of field five (5) for athletic activities, as designated on the official exhibits, shall
between the months of September and December of each year be prohibited during the
following times:
1. 9:00 PM Friday to 9:00 AM Saturday.
2. 9:00 PM Saturday to 9:00 AM Sunday.
i. Use of field five (5) for athletic activities, as designated on the official exhibits, shall
between the months of April and August of each year be prohibited during the following
times:
1. 9:00 PM Friday to 8:00 AM Saturday.
2. 9:00 PM Saturday to 8:00 AM Sunday.
j. Upon completion of the new primary turf field (field 1), and until such a time as it can
be brought into full compliance with the lighting requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, lighting at the existing track and field (field 4) shall not be used except for
track and field meets between March 15 and June 15 of each year.
k. The applicant shall follow guidelines for all fields and associated facilities on the site, as
follows:
1. To the greatest extent possible, all major non-track events shall take place at the
new field 1 (one) per the official exhibits. Major events shall be defined as any
non-track event with over 100 fans in attendance where both the lighting and
sound system is used.
2. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall utilize only one lighting or
sound system at any given time. In no case shall the applicant utilize more than
two lighting or sound systems at any given time.
3. Athletic training using the on-site bleachers shall not be permitted.
4. Except for current users, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department,
temporary, or emergency situations, the applicant shall not permit regular use of
its fields by other schools or organizations. A minor amendment to the Special
Permit shall be required to allow regular use of the applicant’s athletic fields by
other schools or outside organizations.
5. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall attempt to minimize use of the
outdoor amplified sound system and field lighting system during months that
school is not in session, with the exception of current summer sports programs.
6. The addition of new summer sports programs using the outdoor amplified sound
system and field lighting system shall require a minor amendment to the Special
Permit.
7. Except for the National Anthem, summer sports programs shall, to the greatest
extent possible, avoid playing music over the outdoor amplified sound system.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret’s Athletic Facility Improvements
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure
for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is
different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 20, 2009--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Andrew Ford, Robert Kramer, Dennis
Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2009
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes
of April 15, 2009.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
3. Hearings
A. Amendment to Special Use Permit – Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
Location: 2501 Highway 100 South
Applicant: Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
Case No.: 09-12-CUP
Adam Fulton, Planner, stated the Special Use Permit was considered by the
Planning Commission in December, 2008, and approved by City Council in
January, 2009. Since that time, some changes had been made and he presented
the proposed modifications to the special use permit. Staff has asked the
applicant to look at the tree replacement plans again prior to City Council
consideration. Mr. Fulton reviewed the storm water plans. He noted that the
Watershed District board would consider the revised plans sometime in June.
Commissioner Robertson asked about the issues with the underground system.
Mr. Fulton replied his understanding was that some of the issues were related to
maintenance, which was fairly complex. The other issue was that the water table is
high in this location. It all worked together to make construction of the
underground system complex.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 13
May 20, 2007
Page 2
Chair Kramer noted the new storm water holding pond had a drain for overflow.
He asked if that is open or closed on top and could it serve to catch other run off
in the area to keep it away from the Princeton Ct. townhomes.
Mr. Fulton replied he didn’t think it would serve the rest of the area. It wouldn’t
be a regional storm water pond in that way. The overflow chute during major
flood events would contain some of that water.
Chair Kramer asked if a trench could catch runoff in that vicinity.
Mr. Fulton replied it would be more of a swale and said he didn’t believe it would
take any of the water from Princeton Ct. to the south.
Commissioner Carper and Mr. Fulton spoke about the level of the storm water
pond.
Commissioner Morris asked about the staff recommendation for tree replacement.
Mr. Fulton explained that staff wanted to be certain that all caliper inches were
counted. He said any adjustment prior to Council consideration would be an increase
in replacement not a decrease.
Commissioner Person asked if under extreme conditions, the storm water pond
could overflow to the south.
Mr. Fulton replied staff asked questions similar to that in their discussions and the
engineers responded it would not flow south, unless it was a very, very extreme
event, in which case a large portion of the City could be flooded at that time.
Commissioner Person asked if the elevation of the bottom of the pond was above
grade.
Ms. McMonigal responded that the elevation was not above grade and all of the
water from the site would flow toward the pond. She added that the field to the
east also works for flood plain mitigation and was relatively low and could take
water in a major storm event.
Mr. Fulton said according to the grading plan, the normal water elevation of the
pond is 871. The contours of the field to the east (Field #5) are 875 and draining
toward the wetland to the north, 874. North of the storm water pond, the contours
for the baseball field (#3), are 877 to 875.
Commissioner Carper asked if the water level in the pond wouldn’t be above grade
until it was breached.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 14
May 20, 2007
Page 3
Ms. McMonigal replied when the pond reaches a certain level, it overflows in the
swale to the north. It is engineered not to breech anything, except to move the water
from the swale over to the wetlands and then further over to Twin Lake. It was
engineered to flow at a certain level.
Doug Cooley, Benilde St. Margaret’s School (BSM) Building Committee
Chairman, indicated upon receiving the initial approval, they finalized the budget
for the project and determined it was $1 million over budget. They scrutinized the
plan and confirmed that the largest culprit was the man made water solution they
had come up with. Their property also intakes city water. Maintenance for the
water storage tanks would be approximately $15-20,000/year. They have to
manually remove debris each year. That was the reason they had come back with a
different solution. Their solution was an above-grade system. They had worked
with the Minnehaha Watershed District and determined that it could be done, but
would need to be done in two phases. He described the phases and schedule.
Doing this, they lose proposed parking and go from 46 stalls to plus 14. Field 5 will
become smaller and they won’t be able to do as many events. It will be used for
practices and JV games. He showed the tree line for the previous plan and the line
of trees that would be removed in addition to the others talked about last year.
Since they came to the conclusion to pursue a different approach, they met with the
City and held a meeting with the neighbors. The neighbors had some concerns.
BSM also met with the Watershed District. Watershed District approval was one of
the conditions of this approval. They walked the site with the neighbors to confirm
the area of trees, types and sizes. He noted that the pond was at 871 water level, the
bottom 866 and the top 875, when it would overflow into Twin Lake. Twin Lake is
approximately 868. At 871, there is a pipe that would drain the pond underground
into the wetlands.
Chair Kramer opened the public hearing.
Joy Peterson, 2301 Westridge Lane, spoke about events that happened on
Saturday, May 16th. She said BSM had large event that went into Sunday with
well over 500 people and a live, amplified band. No advance notice was given to
the neighbors. She said she understood the hearing regarded the pond and trees
being removed, but thought that the events surrounding last weekend’s party, with
no notice to neighbors, spoke to the spirit and intent of Benilde’s intent to comply
with the entire conditional use permit. She said it was important for the Planning
Commission to know that although Benilde claims to be a good neighbor and is
doing all it can to address neighborhood concerns, there was a consistent pattern
of what they say in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council, not
being the same as what they actually do in practice. She suggested that the
Planning Commission may want to consider incorporating provisions in the
special use permit for compliance, enforcement and consequences.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 15
May 20, 2007
Page 4
Mr. Cooley addressed Ms. Peterson’s concerns and noted that the sleepover was a
Relay for Life event of the American Cancer Society. BSM worked with the City,
Police and Fire Departments and pulled the proper permits for the event. He
added the special use permit does not go into affect until they pull the
construction permit for the project. They had full knowledge of and were aware
of and could comply with conditional use requirements once they are enforced
upon them. The band played from 5:00 – 6:45 PM. There were approximately
400 people in attendance. Mr. Cooley said BSM will comply with the conditions
of approval for the special use permit and amendment.
Commissioner Morris asked if Mr. Cooley was saying they weren’t going to
comply with the conditions of the special use permit until permits were pulled.
Mr. Cooley replied at this point in time, they followed the standard, normal
operating procedure. They plan to incorporate regular meetings with neighbors to
address concerns and specific issues that might come up.
Lee Snitzer, 2504 Quentin Ct., stated that residents raised concerns about the
pond elevation. There has never been an elevation check of his back yard, which
abuts directly the property of BSM and is far below the level of the pond. They
asked questions at the meeting about seepage into their back yards, but there was
no resolution regarding the flood level. He spoke about the concerns of
taxpayers. He said at the neighborhood meeting, he pointed out to BSM staff that
there is no fence around the pond and there are often young children playing
around the pond. Parking was another issue. He said more people will becoming
to events which would result in more spill over parking and more noise in the
neighborhood.
Graham Sones, ATS&R, Project Engineer, indicated no seepage is allowed
according to the Watershed District. There has to be three feet of separation from
the bottom of the pond and the water table. They were forced to line the pond
with a one-foot layer of clay. The outfall elevation at the Twin Lake basin (new
constructed wetlands) was 868. The overflow, when there is a storm event greater
than the 100-year event and the pond fills, would be directed northeast and
collected at the far end of the ball diamond and then would be focused into the
constructed wetland basin. They have fencing between Princeton Ct. and 200-feet
running along the south property. There is separation (fence) between field 5 and
the pond and separation on the north between the concession building. There isn’t
a fence on the west.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Administrator, added typically fences are
not required around storm water ponds. They often can be an attraction and do the
opposite of what they are supposed to do. The ponds are typically benched and
she asked Mr. Sones to describe that.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 16
May 20, 2007
Page 5
Mr. Sones indicated they were creating the permanent pool storage area from 866
to 871 and at that point, the ordinary waterline perimeter. There will be a gradual
slope (10:1) for four to five feet for vegetative growth around the edge. Beyond
that it is a 3:1 bank and gradually rounded to 875.
Commissioner Morris asked if there would be a vegetative screen on the 3:1 slope.
Mr. Sones replied trees would be planted between field 5 and the pond.
Commissioner Morris noted there is a certain style of planting at the edge of
ponds that serves as a barrier.
Mr. Sones responded plantings at that height would be an under story planting and
something that may grow to 4-5 feet high and deter pedestrian movement. They
are planting more trees to comply with City requirements.
Ms. McMonigal asked Mr. Sones to describe the vegetation around the edge of
the pond.
Mr. Sones replied it was a buffer mix of grasses that would probably be two feet
high.
Joan Solomon, 2317 Westridge Lane, lives in the closest house to the current
field. She said she has had many conversations with Dr. Tift and they are
working on progress to mitigate the noise. She stated when Saturday’s event
occurred, a huge event with total chaos, they weren’t making any progress. She
said she is concerned that BSM doesn’t want to do anything unless it is forced to
and there are consequences in the special use permit. She said they are good
people and deserve a new field, but she wanted them to do it within the law. They
had an event for a good cause, but she said she opposed the chaos that occurred
with the event. She asked what will happen when there are three fields unless
there is some kind of enforcement.
Commissioner Morris asked about the hours of the event.
Ms. Solomon responded the event was all night long. At 5 a.m. there were cars
all over the field.
Jane DeMay, 2505 Quentin Ct., just south of field to be expanded, displayed a
visual aid and photos. She said they moved into a residential neighborhood and
understood there was a high school next to them. The practice field was an open
green space surrounded by trees and they hardly knew it was there. The trees also
blocked the stadium area. They loved having the green space. She showed the
area of trees that would be removed. She further discussed her photos and the
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 17
May 20, 2007
Page 6
views after the changes. She stated she will be losing green space and value in
her property. She said if she decides to sell it would be difficult to find a buyer.
Robert DeMay, 2505 Quentin Ct., said in December he urged this matter be tabled
because the proposal failed to address material concerns and he stressed the storm
water issue. It was nice to say they would work these things out, but working them
out causes changes and if you don’t have the details worked out, they may be back
again. He said BSM went before the Watershed District and had to re-do their
calculations three or four times because it never satisfied the Watershed District and
there were problems of how they could maintain the requirements to avoid flooding
problems. They resolved those problems by making the underground storage and
larger. In doing that, they knew it would cost more money and it would need
annual maintenance. So they made changes and got approval and it was less than a
week after the approval when the consultants decided to change to above ground
storage. Mr. DeMay said the Planning Commission should not have sympathy for
Benilde because it brought upon itself the need to come back for a second
amendment after everyone went through a lot of consternation the first time and
they got the approval they needed. He went on to say now BSM wanted to be
relieved of some of the conditions they had agreed to. The changes they were
asking for made Benilde’s use of this property less consistent with R-1 zoning and
added to the adverse impacts for the Princeton Court Association.
Mr. DeMay said the Princeton Court Association did not decide to oppose the plans,
but tried to think outside of the box and went to the Watershed District. The
Association offered to have their pond expanded and make it a regional pond. By
doing that it would help create fields for Benilde and hopefully it would avoid the
need to have more mitigation and eliminate need for a new pond. If they could
avoid that pond, they avoid the need for changing the mitigation. That would save
some of the trees. Mr. DeMay said BSM considered that and decided there may be
issues of liability. They finally said they were not going to consider it because the
process might cause a delay. He said it was not an answer to say a delay that was
caused by actions that they took, and failure to look at what they were proposing,
was an excuse for not looking at the best alternatives for the whole neighborhood.
Someone suggested putting mitigation on City land. If they did that, they could
also avoid cutting down the trees. They would remove a huge amount of screening,
which was significant to the neighbors. Benilde was within their right to do this.
Since they had done that, they cannot use the concern over delay as an excuse.
Mr. DeMay stated that neither Princeton Court Association nor the City can rely on
Benilde’s commitments to be a good neighbor and to work with them. If new
issues arise, no one can expect Benilde to work with them unless they have to, and
if it is not in the permit, they won’t have to. The Association asks that they be able
to rely on the City officials and the City to enforce the zoning code as written. If
the City does so, it must deny this application. The first reason is that Benilde is
asking for a “do-over.” The Code allows amending and restating an existing special
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 18
May 20, 2007
Page 7
permit. In order to have that, any aspect of the property that was being changed
over what was stated in the existing permit (which included underground storage)
must be in compliance with the rest of the zoning code. That change cannot result
in any increase or intensification of a non-conformity. Existing non-conformities
on the site must be brought into greater or complete compliance with the zoning
code.
Mr. DeMay went on to say if this application is treated under the code as an
amendment, as it must be, it must be denied. The proposed changes increase rather
than decrease the adverse impacts on neighbors and in doing so make the site less,
not more, compliant with the zoning code. The code would require the setback for
field 5 to be 25 feet from the property line between Princeton Court Association and
Benilde and it is 10-11 feet. There was no improvement on the setback. The
proposed change is to shrink field 5, which they say would lead to less activity, but
there is no agreement to that.
Mr. DeMay said shrinking the field will squeeze the activity and bring it closer to
the residents. This will increase the non-conformity. There are significant trees
being taken out and it drastically reduces the limited buffering that was to remain
under the old permit. They are not going to enhance the plantings and have no
additional trees.
Mr. DeMay stated that currently the special permit calls for 432 spaces on the site,
plus Benilde has a proof of parking requirement of 44 additional spaces on the
site. That proof of parking is right where the pond is. There is no proof of
parking. They are reducing the spaces by 39 spaces. They are only going to
increase the parking by 7 spaces. Parking on the north side is being reduced.
Mr. DeMay noted that under the current special permit the net impact on the flood
plain, if there is a 100-year flood, the water will back up into field 5, which it is
supposed to do. He asked how much of the water will it store? Under the current
permit, the net impact on the flood plain or the changes that were already permitted
is a volume loss of 40,592 cubic feet. They are going to adversely impact everyone
by reducing the storage volume by 40,000 over what it was now. For an amended
conditional use permit, they have to show they are making it better and more
consistent with the code. He remarked the adverse impacts are growing in every
aspect of the proposal. The entire proposal should be reviewed under the code as it
exists today. The educational use is now a conditional use that would require a
careful review.
Mr. DeMay commented under the current regulations, the trees over 12-inches in
diameter are significant. If you review the whole bank of trees they are removing,
they are off of their requirement by over 500 inches of trees that they need to
plant.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 19
May 20, 2007
Page 8
Mr. DeMay concluded by saying regarding parking, if BSM actually applied the
parking regulations in a way that made sense the only access that should be
permitted to this property is access from an arterial or collector street. That was
not true on the north. They should be looking at the parking requirements for the
south, which would be approximately 500-600 spaces. All of the parking will be
driven to off-street, making matters worse. Benilde is asking to be relieved of
commitments it voluntarily made in order to obtain approval. Granting that relief
adversely affects the neighborhood and there was no justification in the code and
no justification outside the code.
Jean Johnson, 2520 Princeton Ct., expressed a concern about the number of trees
being removed.
Mr. Tift, President, BSM, replied 164 caliper inches of trees would be removed.
Mr. Fulton added 36 significant trees would be removed under the earlier proposal.
Staff has asked Benilde to look at that between now and consideration by City
Council. The number of replacement inches will probably increase.
Ms. Johnson asked how many trees would be planted.
Mr. Fulton replied the earlier proposal was for 36 significant trees to be removed
leaving 254 on the site. Staff proposed the installation of 87 trees.
Chair Kramer noted two letters had been received and distributed to the Planning
Commission. One letter is from Duane Krohnke, 2505 Princeton Ct., indicating
his opposition to the proposed major amendment. Another from William Daniels,
2508 Princeton Ct., in opposition to the proposal and in support of Mr. Krohnke’s
position.
Chair Kramer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris asked about the proof of parking being eliminated, if it was
located where the pond area was supposed to be? Mr. Fulton replied the proof of
parking was included in 2000, under different requirements. Benilde exceeds the
zoning regulation for parking. It is a misnomer to say they are not compliant with
parking. They are currently compliant with the regulations of the zoning ordinance.
Under the special permit, there may be a need to require them to have more parking,
for a variety of circumstances. Benilde has more parking needs potentially than other
people. The proof of parking as was noted, had been included on the pond. It was
staff’s position because there is additional parking available at the site to the South,
there is not a need for additional proof of parking at this time. Should the
Commission see it appropriate to request that Benilde provide some proof of parking
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 20
May 20, 2007
Page 9
space, Benilde would be able to provide proof of parking on either of the two baseball
fields, which could be converted for parking in the future.
Commissioner Morris noted a condition in Council resolution (g), establishing the
amendment to the special permit, that the applicant shall establish a committee
consisting of neighboring property owners and representatives of Benilde St.
Margaret’s, is such a committee in existence? Mr. Fulton replied he was unsure if
Benilde had taken the staff’s recommendation to establish that committee. The
expectation will be that they have taken those steps before the City would issue a
building permit for what was approved on January 20th.
Commissioner Morris asked if there had been any progress? Mr. Tift replied not
in that area yet. It was their understanding if the conditions were applied now or
once they pull the permit. They installed the sound limiters on the baseball fields
and football/soccer stadium. Many of the conditions apply once things are
changed with the new things. It was his understanding that they would start doing
those things once they moved forward.
Commissioner Morris asked when the Council issued the special permit, that was
not the permit? Were they getting another permit to do the construction, and after
the construction was completed was when the special permit provisions took
effect? Mr. Tift responded he was trying to get clarification from the City
regarding when they took effect.
Commissioner Morris asked staff when the conditions applied? Mr. Fulton replied
the typical way a special permit worked was essentially the same as a conditional
use permit. When the applicant gains approval, they need to commence
construction within one year. When it was issue January 20th, there was the
expectation that they would start work within one year or request an extension. In
order to start the site work, the conditions need to be under way. There are a large
number of conditions and some of them would apply in different ways. Staff would
anticipate in regard to item (g), establishing a committee, that it be established
before issuing a certificate of occupancy for the new football field.
Commissioner Morris asked about enforcement power in the special permit.
Mr. Fulton responded by reading condition (d) from Resolution 09-011 approved on
Jan. 20, 2009: Music played over any outdoor amplified sound system shall be
permitted only for a duration of not more than 30 minutes before any varsity
athletic event or for occasional outdoor events typical of a high school.
Commissioner Person asked about condition (d) and if it was a condition that
should be enforced currently, at last weekend’s event for example.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 21
May 20, 2007
Page 10
Mr. Fulton replied some of the music issues were related to on-going issues and
also related to the proposal to add a couple of sound areas at the new fields.
Benilde noted in their earlier comments that they installed the device governing
outdoor amplified sound systems as required by the resolution. He said that
would have also been an event typical of a high school and within the confines of
the noise ordinance governed by the City’s Inspection Department.
Ms. McMonigal added that the event held on Saturday did meet the code
requirements.
Commissioner Morris asked if the code would allow a 24-hour event to occur.
Ms. McMonigal replied she didn’t believe there was anything that would not allow
it. Music wasn’t played all night, it was played until 7 p.m.. She didn’t believe
there was a noise issue, and if there was one, there are noise requirements and the
Police could have been called to enforce it. The issue was partially because the
neighbors didn’t know it was going to happen and it was over night.
Chair Kramer asked about condition (d), saying it seemed there had been an on-
going disagreement between the neighbor’s perception and Benilde’s perception
of cooperation. He asked if the fundraiser of the past weekend was an event
typical of a high school and are they being prevented from doing these things in
the future. He asked about the definition of an event. The neighbors say there is
no one to reach when these situations occur. He asked whose phone number can
be given out so neighbors can reach someone.
Mr. Tift indicated he received a couple of messages on his work phone, although
he was out of town. He called the principal who went to speak with residents. He
said the event was a Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society. Most of the
attendees were school people.
Chair Kramer asked if they would make a phone number available to residents.
Dr. Tift replied, yes, they were working on it. They had hired a security person who
could be on-call.
Chair Kramer asked if the police had a means to deal with noise and if they
carried noise meters.
Ms. McMonigal replied they probably don’t carry decibel meters. The Police can
be called and if it is a public nuisance, they can take care of it. They can
document and note the amount of noise.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 22
May 20, 2007
Page 11
Commissioner Shapiro asked about the storm water ponding and if they knew
whether the pond manages the storm water better than it was today and equal to or
better than what the underground storage would have done.
Mr. Fulton replied they had posed the question to the City Engineer who had
reviewed the plans and said the plan met the requirements. The requirement is for a
100-year storm event, they hold the water on the site and release the water off the site
at only the ten-year rate. This system is designed to accommodate that. They are
mitigating the wetlands on the site and adding the storm water. The new wetlands
will be a higher quality than the ones there now. The City has no regulatory authority
regarding the wetlands. The storm water pond is above and beyond what is out there
today.
Commissioner Robertson stated he trusted the engineering that the volume of the
pond is big enough. He said the Commission had to be comfortable with the work
the engineers did. It was math. It was unfortunate Benilde was in this situation.
He commented that one never knows what something will cost until after the
design work and going out for bid. It does warrant a “do over.” They are taking a
loss and loss of a ball field and parking. He said BSM is back because they
needed to be. He sympathized with the neighbors, but as Ms. DeMay said, it is
the City’s job to protect property owners. Benilde is a property owner and the
trees are on their property.
Commissioner Robertson said he was comfortable with what he had seen. The
underground solution was more elegant, but pricey. This worked and it was not
detrimental. He did not feel it was less than what was approved earlier as long as
the proper number of caliper inches of trees were replanted. They need to make
sure they are in line with species they counted as significant.
Commissioner Carper asked about trees and property rights. He inquired if a
property owner can chose to remove all of the trees and all of the shrubbery on
their property.
Mr. Fulton replied there is an exemption on tree replacement for single-family
homeowners in the City. Institutional or commercial uses have to comply with
tree replacement regulations.
Commissioner Person asked if any consideration has been given to building a
berm along the south property line all the way from W. 25th St. to the east
property line, which would provide additional buffering to the properties to the
south.
Mr. Cooley said there is a berm on the south side of the property as well as a row
of conifer trees that would provide a year-round visual and noise buffer.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 23
May 20, 2007
Page 12
Chair Kramer said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson that Benilde was
within their rights to do this and he said he was satisfied with the drainage issues.
He was concerned about the noise and the neighborhood cooperation issues and
hoped that item (d) received a lot of attention and enforcement. Trees were being
lost, but they were being replaced. He said he didn’t think a view was guaranteed
for life, especially when a use is permitted on a property.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the major
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Morris seconded the motion.
Commissioner Morris recommended condition (d) be modified to say: “Music
played over any outdoor amplified sound system shall be permitted only for a
duration of not more than 30 minutes before any varsity athletic event.” And also,
“For occasional outdoor events, music shall be permitted for the above duration
only until 10:00 PM at night.” He said he would strongly recommend that a 350’
property radius mailing notice be sent out for unusual outdoor events.
Commissioner Robertson added that Email notification could be sent out to those
requesting such notice.
Chair Kramer stated the burden of mailing was not fair. BSM could notify
neighbors with an optional Email. He was not in favor of mailing, but was in
favor of notification.
Chair Kramer noted condition (g) regarding a committee of the neighborhood
seemed a little weak. He would like to enhance that so there was some expected
outcome for improved communication.
Commissioner Morris agreed and felt condition (g) should specify the number of
representatives and the duration of the committee.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 24
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
May 20, 2007
Page 13
Chair Kramer wanted neighborly cooperation to exist and asked Council to
finesse that condition as well.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 25
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for Athletic
Facility Improvements at 2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for floodplain modifications at
2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for fill in excess of 400 cubic
yards at 2501 Highway 100 South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the applications made by BSM to allow various
improvements to be made to their athletic fields?
Proposed is a Major Amendment to a Special Permit. In this case, a Major Amendment is required
when there are substantial changes proposed to an approved site plan. The Conditional Use Permits
are required because changes are proposed to areas of the site within the floodplain and because more
than 400 cubic yards of fill will be removed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Major Amendment and the
Conditional Use Permits, subject to conditions recommended by Staff and consideration of the
additional materials provided at the meeting by adjacent property owners. Staff has analyzed the
materials provided and utilized it in developing the resolutions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
Proposal:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s is proposing modifications to the athletic facility adjacent to the school;
please see the attached site plan. The primary baseball field would be moved to the south, adjacent
to the parking lot. The primary rectangular field would also be moved south to be adjacent to the
parking lot. Other remaining fields would feature minor improvements, but would be used
predominately for lower-intensity games and practice. The proposal includes a 53-space parking lot
expansion. To accommodate the parking lot expansion, two degraded wetlands would be filled. A
replacement wetland would be constructed on an existing practice field located to the south of the
existing track.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 26
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
History:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) has been part of the St. Louis Park community since 1956. The site
was originally owned by the Christian Brothers, who started Benilde as an all-boys school. In 1974
Benilde merged with the Minneapolis all-girls school St Margaret’s, forming the basis for the current
school. BSM has changed over time, as has the land surrounding the school. Single family housing
developed to the north and south of the school, with some multi-family housing developed adjacent
to the school’s southeast border.
Today BSM has approximately 1,100 students. Though BSM has no plans to increase enrollment,
pressure on its facilities has changed as women’s sports have been developed and parking needs have
changed. BSM actively manages parking for students, faculty and visitors, and has a partnership
with Beth-El Synagogue to accommodate extra parking needs during the school day. Use of the
facilities has increased, sometimes leading to complaints from adjacent property owners related to
noise and light.
BSM was last before the City in 2000 for a Major Amendment to its Special Permit. At that time
the approval was for an addition to the school’s gym space. BSM is in compliance with the
requirements of the 2000 approval, with the exception of a requirement that BSM dedicate a new
trail easement to the City. This requirement will be met by the provision of a new easement on the
south and west perimeter of the BSM property to be provided prior to the commencement of any
site work; and, agreement to provide an easement at the City’s direction, at the northeast corner of
the BSM site. These easement commitments are part of the current approval process.
The table below, provided by the BSM Athletic Director, summarizes the current level and intensity
of athletic competitions taking place outdoors at BSM. It is not anticipated that the number of
athletic competitions will increase following the field modifications:
Season Game
Type/Intensity
# of
Games
Description
Fall High 5 Varsity Football; crowds larger than 50 people. Both lights and
sound system in use
Fall Medium-High 12 Varsity Soccer; less than 50 people in attendance. Both sound
system and lights in use
Fall Medium 8 Junior High, 9th grade or JV soccer or football; less than 50
people. Lights are in use but no sound system.
Fall Low 124 Junior High, 9th grade and JV soccer or football; less than 50
people. No lights or sound system.
Spring High 4 Varsity Track meet with multiple schools; attendance of more
than 50 people. Sound system in use, no lights unless meet runs
late.
Spring Medium-High 14 Varsity Lacrosse; less than 50 people. Sound system and lights
used.
Spring Medium 12 Varsity Baseball, less than 50 people. Sound system used, no
lights.
Spring Low 60 Baseball, Softball and lacrosse games; less than 50 people. No
lights or sound system used.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 27
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
Process:
In 2007 BSM formed a building committee to discuss potential upgrades to the site’s athletic
facilities. The stated intent was to solve multiple problems with the changes. Most applicably, BSM
hopes to improve field quality and site drainage. Fields currently become saturated during major
rain events, causing scheduling and other field use problems. In addition to improving field quality,
BSM seeks to improve field location to decrease off-site impacts related to noise and light. The
primary athletic field is currently directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Public Meetings
BSM held two public meetings to discuss the proposal with neighbors over the summer of 2008.
These meetings were held at BSM and featured a question and answer format. To build on these
meetings, City Staff also held two facilitated meetings in November 2008 to further address issues
between BSM and neighbors. The City hired Barry Warner from SRF Consulting to serve as a
facilitator.
Facilitated Process
The first meeting was an “information gathering” session. At this meeting neighbors identified 16
issues to be explored in greater depth by BSM before the next meeting. Notes from that meeting that
include the list of 16 issues are attached to this report.
The second meeting was provided to review how BSM planned to address the concerns of neighbors.
Comments regarding the solutions proposed by BSM are provided in the issues analysis below.
Throughout the two facilitated meetings the neighbors and BSM participated in a frank and open
dialogue. Following these meetings, several modifications were made to the plans to address issues
raised by neighbors.
Planning Commission
Immediately prior to the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, Staff received additional
communications from property owners adjacent to BSM. Because the communications were
received just before the meeting, it was not possible to fully respond directly to each of the concerns
within the Planning Commission Staff report. However, Planning and Engineering Staff were
present at the Planning Commission meeting and attempted to answer each of the questions in
detail. Minutes from the December 17th meeting are attached for review.
As noted above, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Major
Amendment and the Conditional Use Permits, subject to conditions recommended by Staff and
consideration of the additional materials provided at the meeting by adjacent property owners. Staff
has analyzed the materials provided and utilized them in developing the resolutions of approval.
Below, further details are provided analyzing how BSM has tried to address the new concerns raised
at the December 17th meeting.
Zoning Review:
The BSM site is zoned R-1. Though the R-1 district is predominately utilized for single family
housing, institutional uses such as a school or religious institution are also typical within the R-1
district. Educational and recreational facilities are both currently “Permitted with Conditions” in the
R-1 district. The three conditions are:
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 28
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
1. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
2. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
3. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in the R
district.
BSM does not fully meet certain conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, BSM does not
meet the field setback requirement for its south practice field. In addition, current landscaping,
screening, stormwater requirements are different from the rules that were in place when the school
was originally built. The existing facilities are not fully in compliance with those requirements. BSM
originally was approved on this site under slightly different zoning rules that required them to obtain
a Special Permit. To make changes to BSM’s facilities they must seek approval of an amendment to
the existing Special Permit. To gain approval of the amendment, BSM must demonstrate that the
site will come into greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Under the new proposal, BSM
would come into greater compliance with the zoning requirements related to landscaping, screening
and stormwater. Field location related to setbacks is also improved through the use of additional
screening and landscaping; further, programming changes will decrease the non-conformity at the
existing stadium.
Setbacks
There is one existing setback non-conformity on the site. At the south property line, the existing
practice field (#5) is located within the required 25’ setback from a residential property line. Field
five comes within 11’ of the residential property line. The proposed softball practice field in this
location will come no closer than the current conditions on the site. Substantial screening will be
provided within the 11’ setback. The screening in this area will exceed the requirements found in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has worked closely with BSM and the Princeton Court Association (PCA) on issues related to
the south property line. BSM has agreed to add a new fence in this location. The fence will provide
a physical barrier between the PCA property and the BSM practice field. In addition, BSM will
install 29 new trees along this property line. The additional trees, specifically requested by the PCA,
will be of evergreen varieties to provide year-round screening between the townhomes and the
practice field.
The rest of the athletic fields, including the track and field long jump and pole vault pits along the
north property line, meet the required 25’ setback requirement from a residential property. The
track and field athletic facilities are already separated from the residential area by a six-foot fence.
Despite exceeding screening requirements, BSM has agreed to add additional landscaping in this
area. Nine new trees will be added to increase the level of vegetation between the residential
properties and the bleachers.
Landscaping and Screening
A total of 36 significant trees are being removed as part of the reconfiguration of the athletic fields,
leaving 254 existing trees on the site. The proposal includes a substantial addition to the
landscaping already present on the site. BSM is proposing to add 100 new trees to the site to
improve the level of screening and mitigate the impacts of athletic facilities to surrounding
properties. The level of landscaping has increased from the Planning Commission review; at that
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 29
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
time, BSM had proposed the installation of 87 trees. Thirteen more trees have been added to the
landscape plan since the Planning Commission review of the plan.
The tree requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is for 98 trees; following the installation of the
proposed landscaping, BSM will have a total of 354 new and existing trees on its site.
To go further than required under the ordinance, BSM is planning the installation of a large
quantity of trees that are not counted under the landscaping requirements. These trees, known as
“bare-root seedlings,” will grow at a rapid rate and will be planted in the areas around the wetlands
and east of the primary field. By installing such trees, the level of screening in and around the site
will be substantially improved over a short and long-term time frame. These trees are small in size
and cannot be noted individually in the plans; Staff will work with BSM to ensure they are planted
in the appropriate manner and in those locations where they will provide the maximum benefit as
screening and buffering for adjacent property owners.
Because of the unique nature of the site as a 32-acre recreation facility, a count of existing shrubs on
the site was not completed. The basic requirement for shrubs on the BSM site in the Zoning
Ordinance is for 592 shrubs. It is estimated that there are currently over 100 shrubs on the BSM
site. Staff recommends approval of the landscape plan under Section 36-364 (g), “Alternative
Landscape Options.” Because of the character of the site, installing the required number of shrubs
would be inappropriate. Instead, the following alternative special design features of the site are taken
into account when reviewing the landscape plan:
• The number of trees provided substantially exceeds the requirement. This reflects the site’s
size and use characteristics, as trees provide a superior screening buffer on so large a site.
• Alternative landscaping is proposed around the new wetlands. Included in these areas are
seed types recommended by the State Board of Water and Soil Resources. Native plantings,
as proposed, comply specifically with the directives of Section 36-364 (g).
• Bareroot seedlings (both trees and shrubs) will be provided in and around the wetland areas
in locations indicated on the official exhibits.
• Additional trees to improve the vegetative buffer have been required as part of the conditions
of approval.
Parking
Parking at BSM has been a concern over the years. In this plan, BSM has proposed the addition of
53 new parking spaces to its primary parking lot, and a reduction of seven spaces at the north
building. The net increase is 46 spaces on site, representing an increase in off-street parking of
approximately 10%.
Site Current Parking Proposed Parking
North lot 27 spaces 27 spaces
North building 43 spaces 36 spaces
Haben west 32 spaces 32 spaces
Haben east 284 spaces 337 spaces
On-site sub-total 386 spaces 432 spaces
Beth-El shared parking 158 spaces 158 spaces
Total 544 spaces 590 spaces
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 30
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
As part of the submittal, BSM prepared an analysis of parking conditions on the site. This analysis is
attached for review. Staff agrees with the primary conclusion of the analysis: during major events
there will continue to be a slight parking shortage, but that in general the parking situation on the
site is improved.
Of particular concern in the past has been on-street parking on a regular basis. This on-street
parking is partly a result of the existing site plan; the current primary fields are located to the far
north of the site and the primary parking lot is on the south end of the site. The distance from the
primary parking lot and the primary athletic field made parking on-street in the neighborhood north
of BSM a more convenient location than the primary parking lot. The new site plan moves the
primary fields to the center of the site, directly adjacent to the primary parking lot. It also places the
entrance to the field adjacent to the parking lot. It is expected that the proximity of these fields will
reduce use of on-street parking.
BSM is within the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. For a high school facility, the
parking requirement is one space per four students, plus two per classroom. At approximately 1,100
students, the student-based portion of the parking requirement is 275 spaces. The classroom-based
portion, based on a count of 44 classrooms, is 88 spaces. This brings the total parking requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance to 363 spaces; BSM is providing 590 spaces, substantially in excess of the
required number of spaces.
Bicycle parking at BSM is in lower demand than at other area schools. Because BSM students come
primarily from the wider metropolitan area, most students are dropped off at school or drive a
private vehicle to school. Despite this, BSM must include bicycle parking on the plan. According to
the Zoning Ordinance, BSM must provide one bicycle space per ten students. There are
approximately 1,100 students at BSM, resulting in a bicycle parking requirement of 110 spaces.
Because that number of spaces would likely not be used, Staff has accepted a plan by BSM to
provide a proof of bicycle parking area on the site. Additional bicycle parking could be added to the
site if demand for bicycle parking increases in the future.
Stormwater
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans for stormwater rate control and stormwater
quality improvement and has determined that they meet the requirements and standards of the City.
The City Engineer’s review has shown that storm water conditions following the proposed site
redevelopment would result in a lower runoff rate than currently takes place. The site is directly
adjacent to several wetlands as well as Twin Lake. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction over the
wetland and storm water aspects of this site and the proposed site changes. For this reason the
proposal has been subject to detailed scrutiny and approval by many entities outside the City itself,
including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the state Board of Water and Soil Resources,
and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Engineering Staff has worked closely with BSM, the
Watershed District, and an independent engineer engaged by the Princeton Court Association to
ensure that all water issues are resolved. BSM’s project engineers have reviewed the proposed
stormwater calculations and have made modifications to address the neighbor concerns. Efforts have
been made to address concerns raised by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior the Council
meeting. Any City Council approvals will be conditioned on approvals also being provided by the
watershed district and other outside agencies.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 31
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
As noted, the BSM proposal meets all City regulations and policies for stormwater rate control and
management. The proposal will not have achieved final approval from the Watershed District prior
to Council review – nor should it. The City Engineer has indicated that it would be unusual to have
a project with final Watershed District approval that had not yet obtained final City Council
approval. In nearly all instances, including all development projects over the past several years, the
Council approval happens first. Any remaining details related to stormwater are technical in nature
and will not impact the site plan in such a way as to make major modifications necessary.
Lighting
Section 36-363 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates exterior lighting, including outdoor recreational
lighting. New recreational lighting must meet the standards in the zoning ordinance. Lighting on
fields in existence prior to the creation of the lighting standards in the zoning ordinance is exempted
from the light standards.
At the present time there is lighting only at BSM’s primary athletic field in the NE corner of the site
which is used for football. The lighting in this location predates the current lighting rules and is
exempt from them. Even with the exemption the hours of operation of the lights are limited to the
period from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM. BSM is subject to these regulations for the existing lighting
regardless of the status of its Special Permit, as they are based on performance standards that must be
met. Exempted recreational lighting has no numeric foot-candle limit.
The lighting at the existing field was raised as an important concern by adjacent property owners at
the December 17th Planning Commission meeting. To address this concern, BSM agreed to limit
use of the existing field lighting to track and field events only, until the lighting can be brought into
full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. This limitation on BSM would not begin until the
new fields are fully operational; at that time, all non-track events under the lights will take place at
the new field until all lighting systems meet the City’s requirements.
New lighting is subject to the full regulations of Section 36-363, which limit spill-over light to a
maximum of five-tenths of a foot-candle at a residential property line. BSM is proposing the
installation of new lighting at two of the new fields:
• The primary football/soccer/lacrosse field, located in the center of the site.
• The primary baseball field, located in the center of the site to the west of the other primary
field.
The photometric plans provided by the applicant indicate that they are able to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Most applicably, it is noted that lighting at multiple fields
at one time does not increase the level of spill-over lighting. The maximum lighting spill over from
the new fields is as follows:
Field Location Maximum spill-over
New baseball field North residential properties 0.2 foot-candles
New baseball field South residential properties 0.1 foot-candles
New primary field North residential properties 0.1 foot-candles
New primary field South residential properties 0.2 foot-candles
The photometric plans are attached for review.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 32
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
Sound and Acoustics
Sound requirements are not found in the Zoning Ordinance. However, due to the concerns of
adjacent property owners, sound issues have been taken into account as part of the BSM proposal.
In the proposal, BSM plans to retain the existing sound system at the current field. It will be used
for track events and for occasional announcing at junior varsity or varsity make-up games. The new
primary field will also have a sound system installed. The location of this field will minimize noise
issues for neighboring properties; sound will be directed from this system toward Highway 100.
Finally, a new sound system will be installed for announcing at the new baseball field. It will be used
for announcing baseball games, which occur predominately in the spring months of the school year.
Sound regulations are as follows:
District Maximum level
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM
Maximum level
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Residential – measured at the
receiving property, NOT at
the property line
65 decibels 55 decibels
Sound regulations are enforced by the Inspections Department within the City, except in emergency
situations when the Police Department responds to extreme noise events.
To address concerns about noise at BSM, one of the conditions of approval for the proposed Special
Permit amendment requires a device be installed on BSM’s sound systems that will limit the level of
sound generated by the speaker system to a level of noise which would not violate the City’s noise
ordinance (City Code Section 12-122). Sound levels decrease with distance from the sound source.
This means that BSM can assure residents that it will not violate the city’s noise ordinance, by
controlling the maximum decibel level produced at the speaker (the sound source). Even though the
decibel level at the speakers may be high, the sound at the perimeter of the site and at nearby
residences will be much less and in conformance with city noise rules. Because sound levels can be
influenced by innumerous environmental conditions such as ambient noise from State Highway
100, barking dogs, wind direction, humidity and the like, BSM will be required to take these factors
into consideration in setting the maximum decibel level to be produced by the sound system.
BSM and the City have discussed the issue at length and will take the following steps to ensure the
compliance with of noise rules:
• City Staff will randomly monitor a minimum of two BSM football events during the evening
hours each fall. The results of these inspections will be clearly and directly communicated to
neighborhood leaders and other interested parties.
• As required, BSM will install devices to limit the sound level of each speaker. These devices
are technologically superior to the existing system, and will prohibit tampering by students
seeking to increase the volume.
• BSM will limit pre-game warm-up music to a maximum of 45 minutes prior to varsity
games.
• BSM will prohibit pre-game music except for varsity games and occasional school events,
such as pep rallies. In all circumstances the playlist will be reviewed by BSM Administration
beforehand.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 33
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
• BSM will ensure that music is not played during athletic practices or other non-varsity
athletic events.
The consultant working on the BSM project, AST&R Consulting will be at the City Council
meeting and will provide further technical explanation of the sound issue .
Tree Replacement
The site redevelopment plan calls for the removal of 168 caliper inches of significant trees from the
site. However, due to the site’s high number of significant trees, the tree replacement formula does
not require the replacement of any trees on the site. Nevertheless BSM has agreed to replace any
significant trees removed, bringing the replacement requirement to a minimum of the 168 caliper
inches. By transplanting existing trees on the site and through the installation of new trees, the
applicant is exceeding the requirement:
Tree type Replacement value (caliper inches)
New trees 194 caliper inches
Transplanted trees 95.5 caliper inches
Total 289.5 caliper inches
Requirement 168 caliper inches
Summary + 121.5 caliper inches
The level of tree replacement substantially exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. BSM
also increased the level of trees being replaced on the site between the Planning Commission and
Council meetings; at the Planning Commission review, BSM was only exceeding the tree
replacement requirement by approximately 87 caliper inches.
BSM is also planning the installation of a large quantity of trees that do not meet tree replacement
standards. These trees, known as “bare-root seedlings,” will grow at a rapid rate and will be planted
in the areas around the wetlands and east of the primary field. By installing such trees, the level of
screening in and around the site will be substantially improved over a short and long-term time
frame.
Between the Planning Commission and Council meetings, a very specific request was made of BSM
by the neighbors at the Princeton Court Association to add additional evergreen plantings between
the BSM south practice field and the townhomes. BSM added a substantial number of trees to the
area in an attempt to meet that request. Most applicably, BSM added two rows of evergreens to the
south boundary as specifically requested; in other instances, trees were added where the greatest
screening and buffer impact could be achieved.
To insure the installation of landscaping and replacement trees, a condition of approval has been
included that the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee in the amount of 125%
the cost of all landscaping prior to beginning any site work. The financial guarantee must be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of any administrative permits, such as a building permit or
erosion control permit. Upon installation of the landscaping, a portion of the financial guarantee
can be returned to the applicant; the full financial guarantee cannot be returned to the applicant
until a full growing season has passed. This ensures that all landscaping materials survive, are
properly installed and will survive the winter.
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 34
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
Site Access
There is no change anticipated for automobile access to the site. However, there are aspects of the
site plan that will improve access to and around the site for pedestrians and bicycles.
BSM plans to dedicate a new easement along the south and west borders of their property. By doing
so, it will be possible at some future time for the City to construct a trail in those locations. Doing
so would improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and to the Cedar Lake Trail, which can be
reached by following the frontage road approximately a quarter mile to the north of the BSM site.
The site plan also preserves the existing informal access to Twin Lakes Park, cited by some neighbors
as an important recreational connection. The Special Permit requires that BSM to provide an
easement to the City for access between Twin Lake Park and Westridge Lane if requested by the
City. The access point would provide improved recreational access to Twin Lake Park and the Lake
Forest neighborhood. At this time, there is no intent to construct such an access; however, its
construction is not precluded by the BSM plans.
Transportation
As required, the bus drop-off is separated from the parking lot. The parking lot addition does not
result in any negative impacts to buses entering the site.
Summary of Special Permit Amendment
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Because the
property is regulated under a Special Permit, there are certain aspects of the site that are not required
to come into full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, such as particular setbacks and other
existing conditions. New conditions, such as the addition of new field lighting, must meet the
current regulations, and have been shown to do so.
Conditional Use Permit: Floodplain
A portion of the BSM site lies within the City’s Floodplain Overlay District. In this area, a
conditional use permit is required when an applicant proposes any modifications to the floodplain.
Per City Code Section 36-294 (e), the uses proposed by BSM in the floodplain areas are permitted
uses in that location; however, modifications to the floodplain must obtain a CUP to guarantee that
compensatory storage is created to ensure no areas of the floodplain are filled without mitigation.
The floodplain regulations mandate that no stage increase is permitted; that is, an applicant cannot
fill in the floodplain without removing compensatory material from the floodplain. The following
table summarizes BSM’s proposed modifications to the floodplain:
Summary
Filled Floodplain Volume - 259,400 cubic feet
Existing Floodplain Volume Credit + 45,738 cubic feet
Total Floodplain Volume Loss - 213,662 cubic feet
Created Floodplain Volume + 218,808 cubic feet
New Floodplain Volume Credit + 5,146 cubic feet
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 35
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
The volume calculations for floodplain fill and removal have been reviewed by the City Engineer
and have been determined to meet the requirements of the City. Although compensatory storage is
typically provided outside the floodplain, the proposed plan best utilizes the complexity of BSM’s
site to achieve the goal of no stage increase for the area.
Staff has determined that BSM meets the requirements of the Floodplain Overlay District.
Conditions are included below relating to the CUP for fill in the floodplain.
Conditional Use Permit: Excavation
Because of the proposed modifications to the site, a substantial amount of grading is required. For
the new parking lot, two existing wetlands must be filled. These wetlands were subject to a
MNRAM assessment prepared by the project architects and reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and the state Board of Soil and Water Resources. It was determined that the
wetlands were currently “degraded” and that no negative environmental effects would result from
them being filled. However, the wetlands must be replaced on-site. To replace these wetlands,
excavation will take place on the area just south of the existing track. The existing practice field
south of the track will be converted to new wetlands.
Haul Route
Trucks hauling materials being removed or brought to the site have direct access both north and
south on Highway 100 from the frontage road. The truck route will be the frontage road north and
south to Highway 100. Trucks will be restricted by the conditions of the CUP from using other
streets in the neighborhood.
Timeline
Excavation on the site will take several months. During this time, there will be increased truck
traffic into and out of the site onto 25 ½ Street West and the adjacent frontage road. Once the
excavation and other site modifications are complete, truck traffic at the site will subside and be
more typical of a regular construction project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The modifications to the athletic facilities at Benilde-St. Margaret’s fulfill aspects of several vision
goals. The dedication of a new easement along 26th Street and the Highway 100 frontage road
improve the connected network of sidewalks and trails through the community. Improved water
quality measures proposed for the site will decrease the level of pollutants entering the Twin Lakes
watershed, improving the area’s ecological quality and meeting the vision goal for environmental
improvement.
Attachments: Resolution – Major Amendment to the Special Permit
Resolution - Conditional Use Permit for floodplain modifications
Resolution – Conditional Use Permits for fill
Draft Minutes – December 17, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Meeting notes – November 13th, 2008 Athletic Facilities Discussion
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 36
Council Agenda Report of January 20, 2009
Location Map
Parking Analysis
Site Plans and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke. Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 37
26TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S25 1/2 ST W PARKWOODS RDCEDARWOOD RD
23RD ST W
STEPHENS DR
SALEM AVE SUTICA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SWESTRIDGE LNPRINCETON AVE SQUENTIN
CTHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 S26TH ST W
3555 Highway 100 - Benilde-St. Margaret'sMajor Amendment and Conditional Use Permits
$
December 17, 2008
3
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
400
FeetX
R-C POS
R-1C-2
R-1
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 38
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 39
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility ImprovementPage 40
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility ImprovementPage 41
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 42
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 43
Meeting of June 15, 2009 (Item No. 8b) Subject: Benilde St. Margaret's Athletic Facility Improvement Page 44