HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/04/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 7, 2008
6:45 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Westwood Room
1. Advertising and Sponsorship Guidelines
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Honoring Judge Allen Oleisky Proclamation
2b. Volunteer Week Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special Study Session Minutes March 17, 2008
3b. City Council Minutes March 17, 2008
3c. Study Session Minutes March 24, 2008
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent
calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing regarding the Modification of the Tax Increment Plan for the
Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District.
Recommended Action:
Mayor to close Public Hearing.
Meeting of April 7, 2008
City Council Agenda
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Request for preliminary plat approval with variances for Isabelle Estates located
at 8550 Minnetonka Blvd.
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Isabelle Estates with a
lot width variance to allow a reduction in the amount of the lot that must meet the
75 foot minimum width.
Motion to adopt a resolution denying a variance request for elimination of the
requirement to install a sidewalk along Aquila Ave.
8b. Project Report: 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project #2007-1100.
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering
Improvement Project No. 2007-1100, approving plans and specifications, and
authorizing advertisement for bids.
8c. Adjourn to a Closed Door/Executive Session to discuss with the City Attorney
pending/ongoing litigation with Pawn America.
8d. Adjourn to a Closed Door/Executive Session to discuss with the City Attorney
pending/threatened litigation with ARINC.
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.
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 of April 7, 2008
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Second reading of an Ordinance for Vacation of a Portion of a Drainage and
Utility Easement at 2535 and 2545 Huntington Ave.
4b. Adopt Resolution directing the City to enter into an agency agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation relating to a grant awarded to the City by
Transit for Livable Communities.
4c. Approve Change Order No. 5 to Contract 15-07 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard
Lift Station (LS) #18 and Force Main (FM) - City Project No. 2005-1200.
4d. Approve Authorization Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire Department
Breathing Apparatus.
4e. Approve Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate
Recycling).
4f. Approve for filing of Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes February 20,
2008
4g. Approve for filing of Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008
4h. Approve of filing of Vendor Claims
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff on the desire to proceed with an advertising and sponsorship policy; and
provide direction to staff about working with outside vendors to sell advertising and sponsorships.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the council feel an advertising and sponsorship policy is necessary, and if so, should the scope
of the proposed policy be adjusted?
Does the council feel it is appropriate to continue utilizing outside contractors to sell advertising or
sponsorships for city publications and other media?
BACKGROUND:
Advertising Policy
In July 2007, city staff discussed with the council the absence of a city publication advertising policy.
Partnering with advertisers or sponsors is a practice already in place in the city related to
publications, Web, media, events and facility advertisements. Currently, the city enters into revenue-
sharing agreements to sell or place ads with a variety of contractors. This practice has been done on
occasion over the years and we do not have a policy. The city recently adopted an advertising policy
for athletic field advertising.
Staff is recommending that a general policy for advertising and sponsorships be developed to give
staff guidelines to cover publications, other written media, cable television, videos and the website.
The purpose of an advertising policy is to allow the city the opportunity to set standards in its
advertising and make sure our advertising also meets with the vision, mission and values in our
organization along with asset building for children in our Children First initiatives.
A policy for advertising in city facilities is not recommended to be included at this time. This is
controlled in Parks and Recreation and the system used appears to be working. If facility advertising
is to be included, staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Director develop
recommendations.
Use of Outside Vendors
In 2007, the city began for the first time to utilize the services of an outside firm to sell advertising
for the City/School calendar. The city and school district entered into a revenue-sharing agreement
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
which allowed for the two organizations to see their annual contributions to the project rise only
slightly, while the project itself grew in scope.
Also in 2007, the city was approached by CGI Communications to produce community videos for
the city website, free of charge. CGI received all revenue from the ads and the city received six videos
with an approximate value of $40,000. These types of offers are continually increasing as private
businesses see ways to partner with government to improve communications by doing what they do
best for government, but earning revenue for themselves at the same time. Staff is interested in
continuing the option of using outside vendors for advertising if it is in the best interest of the city
and meets our business need.
Community Handbook proposal
Contained within the 2008 budget is a $30,000 line item to produce a new Community Handbook.
It has been several years since the last handbook was created and much has changed in the
community. CityImage Communications, the firm the city partners with for most of its
publications, including Park Perspective, recently approached the city with an offer similar to those
mentioned in this report. CityImage is currently expanding its business to become a publisher of
community handbooks. Under this model, CityImage will create a community guide to be mailed to
all homes and businesses in the community that will be fully supported by advertising revenue.
Knowing that we intended and budgeted for our own community guide for 2007, CityImage has
asked the city if it would like to be a partner with them on their publication. They would still sell the
advertising, but they would grant the city and the schools in the community creative control over
content and design, thereby allowing us to implement our branding to information relevant to the
city. If we choose not to partner with CityImage and produce our own publication, CityImage still
plans on proceeding and residents and business owners would be receiving the same information
twice and at a much greater cost. Additionally, we would likely face challenges selling our advertising
as we would now have a competitor trying to sell a publication similar to our own.
Staff recommends that we work on this project with CityImage for the community guide. If the city
is to take advantage of this opportunity and others like it that may arise, it is important that we have
tools available to us, such as an advertising policy to help guide the process and protect the city’s
interest.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
By selling ads or sponsorships, the city or its partners are able to offset the cost of production,
publishing and mailing. The city-school calendar typically costs more than $30,000 to produce.
With the sale of ads, the city and the school district are able to cut each of their costs down to about
$5,000 - $6,000. The Community Handbook, which has historically been a city publication, also
utilizes ads. The cost of producing this publication by the city, even after applying revenue from ad
sales, is approximately $30,000. By partnering with CityImage we will save these dollars
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Reaching out to the
public with timely, accurate information enables us to do keep them connected and engaged.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
Attachments: Proposed Advertising/Sponsorship Policy
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
City Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
DRAFT
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for allowing advertising or sponsorships in city
publications and other forms of media.
Application of Advertising and Sponsorship Guidelines
The City of St. Louis Park will consider allowing paid advertising and sponsorship guidelines to
offset the production costs related to certain publications and media productions. Advertising and
sponsorship policies are administered by the City Manager or designee.
Examples of publications and media productions include but are not limited to: City/School
Calendar, Community Guide, New Resident Packet, Maps, Parks and Recreation information, cable
& video productions and the city’s website.
This guideline does not apply to city facilities or neighborhood newsletters. Advertising for field
signage is included in the zoning ordinance.
Advertising & Sponsorship Standards
All advertisements and sponsors are subject to the City Manager’s approval. Advertising or sponsors
will be in line with the Vision, Mission and Values of the City. Standards should be in line with our
designation as a Children First community.
No advertising will be permitted which:
• Is false, misleading, libelous, or deceptive;
• Relates to an illegal activity;
• Contains obscene material as determined by community standards;
• Advertises alcohol, tobacco products or sexually oriented businesses;
• Includes language which is obscene, vulgar or profane;
• Implies an endorsement by the City for the product or service; and
• Promotes a commercial transaction that is prohibited by federal, state or local law or
regulations
Requirements
Staff will develop specific display requirements for each type of advertising depending on the format
of the media. The City assumes no liability for errors in advertisements submitted. Positioning of
advertisements is at the discretion of the City except where a request for a specific position is
accepted as part of the advertising sale, as determined by the City Manager.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Advertising & Sponsorship Guidelines
Third-party sales and Joint publications
• In the event that the city contracts with a third party to sell advertisements for any city
publication or media, those advertisements are subject to this policy.
• In the event that the city produces a publication or other media jointly with another
organization, all advertisements and sponsorships are subject to this policy and any
additional standards imposed by the other organization’s policy.
• The City will allow trade-outs for advertising with other community organizations meeting
the above advertising standards with the City Manager’s or his/her designates’ approval.
Administration
The City Manager may establish administrative standards, policies and rules in addition to those
stated above appropriate to this guideline. The City Manager may direct staff to develop and
provide the necessary forms, procedures and instruction for the implementation of this program.
The City Manager has the authority to interpret, develop, change and delete sections within this
program. Exceptions to this policy must be made only at the discretion of the City Manager. The
City of St. Louis Park reserves the right to decline or cancel any submitted advertisement or
discontinue posting of any advertisement previously accepted.
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation and Plaque
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Expression of Appreciation to Judge Allen Oleisky
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to recognize Judge Allen Oleisky by reading and presenting both an appreciation
plaque and proclamation declaring April 7, 2008 as Allen Oleisky Day.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Hennepin County District Court Judge Allen Oleisky has been a long time resident of St. Louis
Park and the state’s most senior jurist who is stepping down from the bench after 36 years of service.
He has been a true leader who understands the importance of community outreach. His
contributions to the community are multi-faceted and include meeting and speaking with minority
groups, neighborhood associations, schools, church groups, and especially the youth. The plaque
and proclamation will recognize and honor Judge Allen Oleisky.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Honoring Judge Allen Oleisky
PROCLAMATION
“Allen Oleisky Day”
WHEREAS, Hennepin County District Judge Allen Oleisky, a community member and
citizen of St. Louis Park, has served as a District Court Judge longer than any other judge in the
state, exemplifies true leadership, and understands the importance of community outreach; and
WHEREAS, in 1972, Allen Oleisky was appointed to the Hennepin County Municipal
Court by Governor Wendell Anderson, and in 1974 was appointed to Hennepin County District
Court where he presided in Juvenile Court from 1979 to 1990; and continued to serve as a Fourth
Judicial District Court Judge until his retirement in March of 2008; and
WHEREAS, Judge Oleisky was a charter member of the Youth Advocacy Board, served on
the Minneapolis Youth Coordinating Board, was chair of the Minnesota Juvenile Judges’
Association; and sat on the Minnesota Improved Juvenile Justice Committee which is a coalition of
parents, police, attorneys, and social workers; and
WHEREAS, Judge Oleisky was an adjunct teacher at Hamline University Law School;
taught continuing education classes for teachers at the University of St. Thomas; and in 2007 was
awarded the Lifetime Commitment Award by the Twin Cities Cardozo Society which recognizes
excellence in practice and service in the Jewish and general communities; and
WHEREAS, Judge Oleisky has made many contributions and provided support to the City
of St. Louis Park and its residents, some of which included his involvement with the Little League
Baseball Association, administering oath of office to city officials, and assisting the Police
Department as a resource and signing after hour search warrants; and
NOW, THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of St. Louis Park
appreciate Judge Allen Oleisky’s contributions to the community and honor his 36 years of
distinguished service as judge in the Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
hereby declare April 7, 2008 to be known as “Allen Oleisky Day” and wish him continued success in
all future endeavors.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 7th day of April, 2008.
_________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 2b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Proclamation for National Volunteer Week
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to recognize St. Louis Park volunteers and read a proclamation declaring April
27 – May 3, 2008 National Volunteer Week. There will not be anyone in attendance at the council
meeting to receive the proclamation – staff requests that the mayor read the proclamation. The
proclamation will be used for publicity and recognition of volunteers during National Volunteer
Week.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
National Volunteer Week was created in 1974 when President Richard Nixon signed an executive
order to establish the week as an annual celebration of volunteerism. Every year since that time each
U.S. President, along with many governors, mayors and other elected officials, has signed a
proclamation promoting National Volunteer Week.
In St. Louis Park, we have hundreds of volunteers who donate their time and talents each year for
the betterment of our community. The proclamation will recognize and honor these volunteers.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Proclamation
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Subject: National Volunteer Week Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
National Volunteer Week
WHEREAS, the entire community can effect positive change with any volunteer action no
matter how big or small; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park wishes to honor our volunteers who tirelessly share
their time and talent by volunteering to help our youth, the elderly, families in need, and the
disabled in our community; and
WHEREAS, our City’s volunteers are a great treasure, vital to our future as a caring and
productive city, and integral to our vision of becoming a connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, over 1,400 volunteers in St. Louis Park work over 15,000 hours each year in
areas such as Adopt a Park/Garden, Westwood Nature Center events, Literacy 1st, Parktakular,
Before and After School Reading Programs, Rec Center events, Pick up the Park, and for
organizations such as Meadowbrook, STEP and Perspectives;
NOW, THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park wish to proclaim the week of April 27-May 3, 2008 as “NATIONAL VOLUNTEER
WEEK” and call upon all citizens to recognize and celebrate the important work that volunteers do
every day throughout our community, and encourage citizens to explore ways to help their neighbors
in need and serve a cause greater than themselves.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great
Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 7th
day of April, 2008.
______________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MARCH 17, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Finance Director (Mr.
DeJong), Fire Chief Stemmer, Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of
Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Pay 2009 Assessed Valuation Report
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report. He stated this year’s assessment process has been one of the
most difficult in recent years because of the turmoil in the housing market.
Mr. Bultema provided a comprehensive overview of the assessing process conducted by the City. He
explained that single family homes are valued by a CAMA (computer assisted mass appraisal) system;
a land CAMA system was introduced this year but is not being relied on at the present time. He
noted as sales occur, they are verified and compared to the current period assessed value.
Mr. Bultema stated that due to recent trends in the housing market, homes under $175,000 are
starting to correct heavily and those values are being lowered. He stated that the City is required to
appraise at 100% of market value, with an acceptable range of 90-105%. He noted that 95% is the
defined target level. He stated that valuation notices were mailed today and there are 17,193 parcels
of record in the City. He explained that each notice contains 2007 and 2008 information for
property classification, market value, limited, value, improvement value, this old house, and taxable
value. He noted that limited market value ends in 2009.
Mr. Bultema explained changes in value on the 2008 assessment notices, and stated that single
family residential is down slightly compared to last year and residential properties represent the vast
majority of the total market value in the City. He indicated that commercial and industrial remains
strong, while condos and townhomes are down. He stated that total valuation of the community is
up 0.5%.
Mr. Bultema presented 2007 residential sales data compiled from MLS records for St. Louis Park,
Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, and Minnetonka. He noted that St. Louis Park is maintaining a
good “average number of days on the market,” as well as a very good “list to sale price.” He stated
that metro wide, the market is soft for homes under $175,000, while homes in the $225,000-
$500,000 range remain stable. He indicated that staff has reviewed foreclosure information and
there were 70 foreclosures in 2006, which is a healthy rate in terms of housing stock; the foreclosure
rate in 2007 was 87. He stated that some areas in the north metro are approaching a 3.5%
foreclosure rate.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes March 17, 2008
Mr. Bultema presented historical information with respect to median sale prices and stated that the
City is in line with its peer cities and in the metro area as a whole. He stated that 93% of the parcels
in the City are priced at $175,000 to $500,000. He explained that adjustments were made to the
housing stock above $500,000 of 9.8% to match market sales and to bring their values in line with
the 95% ratio; this will help to achieve equity in the valuation system. He stated that just over half
of the residential parcels will see a decrease in market value, 30% of the parcels will see no change in
value, and just fewer than 20% will have an increase in market value. He indicated that no
neighborhood had any major transition in terms of valuation.
Mr. Bultema discussed the periodic inspection cycle and noted that the State requires inspections be
conducted on a five year cycle. He stated that this year they are working in the Lake Forest area. He
noted that the most difficult attribute of real estate to get right in a mass system is the “fit and
finish.”
Councilmember Sanger stated it would be helpful for the City Council to have talking points
available in order to respond to resident calls.
Mr. Bultema agreed to prepare talking points for the Council and noted that the City has expanded
the time between mailing of the notices and the Board of Equalization from four weeks to six weeks,
with the Local Board of Equalization on April 28, 2008.
Councilmember Sanger stated there appear to be a number of properties where the valuation is low
compared to the actual sale price of the property.
Mr. Bultema explained that we have seen sales from 60% of the sale price up to 130% of the sale
price, with the obvious goal of 95% as the target. He indicated that statistically, the City is doing a
good job but there will always be outliers.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is a monitoring system in place to find those properties that
are way off the mark.
Mr. Bultema replied that all jurisdictions are required to report to the State; if the State or County
determines the City is not doing its job, they will do a correction action.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed his thanks to staff for their excellent report and stated the
information was very helpful. He stated the City should consider setting aside more time for the
Board of Equalization this year, given the turmoil in the housing market. He also asked if the
Council is up to date on its training.
Mr. Harmening stated that we do meet the requirements with two council members having been
through training.
Mr. Bultema stated the first meeting is to take appeals under record; staff will then attempt to
resolve as many appeals as possible.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes March 17, 2008
Mr. Harmening stated that Councilmembers Omodt and Finkelstein are the trained Council
members.
Mr. Bultema stated he will check to see if they are required to take any type of refresher course.
Mr. DeJong presented a graphic representing a pie chart and stated it is important to remember that
if your share of the pie remains the same, even if the size of the entire pie is larger, your share of taxes
is going to remain the same. In other words, even if the entire pie went down 10%, if everything
stays the same on the levy side, the taxes would be essentially the same.
Mr. DeJong stated the City is collecting $20 million in property taxes. Mr. Bultema stated that a
rough rule of thumb is that residential properties pay 1.25% of their total value in tax.
Councilmember Basill stated it will be important for residents to understand that homes in St. Louis
Park are still holding their value, that average days on the market is far less than Golden Valley,
Edina, Hopkins, and Minnetonka, and that sale prices were closest to the asking price when
compared with peer cities.
Council recessed to a Council Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Council reconvened the Study Session at 8:01 p.m.
2. Evaluation of Potential Fire Station Sites
Mr. Harmening stated staff is continuing its evaluation of Fire Station site options. He explained
that Council previously asked staff to analyze whether the City should stick with a two station
concept or whether to go with a single station concept; the Council determined that the City
maintain a two station concept. He added that staff has discovered that the general location of the
City’s fire stations works well. He indicated that staff is looking at the south station (station 1) as
the location for the main station or satellite station; in terms of station 2, staff has been looking at
various sites including the northwest corner of Louisiana Avenue and Cedar Lake Road, however,
from an operational perspective, this site will require some compromises and may not be best suited
for a fire station. He added that staff has looked at sites on the north side of the City, including the
Eliot School site, and there have been some preliminary discussions with the school and they are
interested in further discussions with the City.
Mr. Harmening stated with respect to the south side site, the utilities department is currently housed
at this location and the City will need to relocate this department, possibly at the Municipal Service
Center (MSC) on Oxford. He stated the estimated cost for modifications to the MSC and two fire
stations could reach $15-20 million.
Mr. Locke stated the City hired an appraiser to do an appraisal of the Eliot School property; the
appraisal is not yet complete, but the City has been given a range of $2-4 million.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes March 17, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the school property has gone beyond its useful life.
Mr. Locke replied that like any building of that age, there are significant issues to be addressed.
Mr. Harmening stated the City’s willingness to consider a lease arrangement is different and unique,
and the City may wish to consider a lease/purchase agreement.
Councilmember Carver stated this is a win-win situation for both parties and encouraged staff to
give serious consideration to this option.
Councilmember Sanger asked whether consideration should be given to a community center type of
use for the school site given the fact that the City does not need the entire site for a fire station.
Mr. Harmening stated the most important next step is for the City to talk to the neighborhood
about this before making any assumptions. He indicated that it is staff’s intent to hold meetings not
only with the Elmwood neighborhood, but also with the Eliot neighborhood.
Mayor Jacobs asked if any other sites or options are being considered.
Mr. Harmening replied that one option includes building a main station at the current Station 1
location and then finding a suitable location for a satellite station on the north side of town. The
main station would have fire apparatus and personnel, including administrative services (meeting
rooms, training rooms, etc.) and the satellite station would house crew and apparatus only.
Councilmember Basill concurred with Councilmember Carver’s comments regarding a
lease/purchase agreement with the school.
Mr. Hoffman stated that survey work and traffic studies are being done at the present time.
Mr. DeJong stated that there are distinct advantages to cities issuing bonds in increments of less than
$10 million and recommended breaking the project into two stages; this will make it much easier to
market the bonds. He added there are a lot of different financing mechanisms available to the City.
There was Council consensus to conduct neighborhood meetings in order to obtain resident input
and to schedule another meeting with the School District representatives.
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 17, 2008
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:33 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), City Attorney (Mr. Knetsch), Assistant Zoning
Administrator (Mr. Morrison), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Others present: County Commissioner Gail Dorfman.
2. Presentations
2a. Barb Obershaw Certificate of Appreciation
Mayor Jacobs presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Barbara Obershaw for her years of service as
President of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s
thanks and appreciation to Ms. Obershaw for her effective and dedicated leadership on behalf of the
City.
Ms. Obershaw introduced Bruce Nustad, new President of TwinWest, along with board member,
Dan Goldman, and past board member, Jan Kruchoski.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes February 25, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Minutes March 3, 2008
It was noted on page 2, item 4, the last paragraph before the motion, should state: “Mr.
Harmening requested Council meet for a closed executive session after the Council meeting
to update Council on Pawn America litigation.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Closed Executive Session Minutes March 3, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes March 17, 2008
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. Resolution No. 08-041, Traffic Study No. 610: Authorize Permit Parking
Restrictions 3755 Glenhurst Avenue South.
4b. Certificate of Correction for the Hoigaard Village Addition Plat.
4c. Removed from the Consent Calendar and added to Regular Agenda Item 8b.
(Resolution requesting Gambling Permit Renewal for St. Louis Park Hockey
Boosters Association).
4d. Resolution No. 08-043, Final Payment - Contract 37-07 – Hardrives, Inc. (2006-
1000, 2006-1100 & 2007-1400).
4e. Resolution No. 08-044, Final Payment - Contract 51-07 – Midwest Asphalt
Corporation (2006-1101 & 2006-1102).
4f. Resolution No. 08-045, authorizing Special Assessment Transfers to the Permanent
Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund.
4g. Filing of Police Advisory Commission Minutes March 5, 2008.
4h. Filing of Planning Commission Minutes January 2, 2008.
4i. Filing of Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2008.
4j. Filing of Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes December 19, 2007.
4k. Filing of Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes January 16, 2008.
4l. Filing of Vendor Claims.
Councilmember Omodt asked that item #4c be removed from the Consent Agenda and
added to the regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent Item 4c
to the regular Agenda as item 8b.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
Mayor Jacobs stated that the Council interviewed a candidate earlier this evening for the Police
Advisory Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to appoint Lekpea
Kordah as youth member to the Police Advisory Commission for a term expiring August 31, 2008.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes March 17, 2008
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for Vacation of a Portion of
a Drainage and Utility Easement at 2535 and 2545 Huntington Ave.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated staff recommends approving the first
reading and setting the second reading for April 7, 2008.
No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was very pleased to approve this easement vacation,
particularly in light of all the previous opposition, and added she is happy to see agreement
among the neighbors that three lots are too many.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to approve
first reading of an Ordinance approving the vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility
easement over lots 1, 2 and 3, Biltmore Addition, and setting the second reading of the
proposed ordinance for April 7, 2008.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Active Living Resolution
Resolution No. 08-046
County Commissioner Gail Dorfman appeared before the Council and stated she and
Mayor Jacobs co-chair Active Living Hennepin County, a group formed in mid-2006
following a 2005 internal county recommendation to move forward on active living; and its
successful application to Blue Cross Blue Shield for funding of community assessment and
engagement. She stated she believed that St. Louis Park was one of the first cities to look at
pedestrian level lighting and to focus on making sure the City was connected with ample
opportunity to walk and bike. She stated this initiative was a private/public partnership
intended to look at land use planning and how the City creates public and private spaces in a
way that will build healthy behavior for all residents. She indicated the County passed a
resolution at the Board level embracing active living principles and has now created an
internal work group across all business lines to make sure it focuses on these principles and
serves to enhance them over the years. She added this represents a new way of thinking
about how we design our communities and encouraged the Council to approve the
resolution supporting Hennepin County’s Active Living Principles.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt
Resolution No. 08-046, supporting Hennepin County’s Active Living Principles.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes March 17, 2008
8b. Resolution Gambling Permit Renewal for St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters
Association
Resolution No. 08-042
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report for renewal of a Gambling Premises Permit for the
St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar & Grill, 5916
Excelsior Boulevard, for the duration of May 1, 2008 – April 30, 2010.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 08-042, approving issuance of a premises permit for lawful gambling to be
conducted by St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar & Grill,
5916 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 5-0-2 (Councilmembers Omodt and Basill abstained).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to the organizers of the “Empty Bowls” event and added the
event was very well-attended.
Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to everyone who attended the Lions Pancake Breakfast held last
Sunday.
Mayor Jacobs expressed his personal condolences as well as the City’s condolences to the families
who lost their homes to fire over the weekend. He strongly encouraged all residents to make sure
their smoke detectors are in proper working order and stated that the smoke detector saved a life in
one of the fires over the weekend. He commended the police and fire personnel for their efforts at
the fires.
Councilmember Carver expressed his thanks to the first responders at the house fires, including
Golden Valley.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MARCH 24, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki, and Susan Sanger
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Community Development
Director (Mr. Locke) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
Guest: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Planning Commission Chair; Carl Robertson, Planning
Commissioner; Brian Johnson, SRF Consulting Group; Steve and Frank Dunbar, Union Land II,
LLC.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and Council discussed study session agenda planning.
Councilmember Basill suggested they discuss excess land proceeds at a future study session.
Councilmember Omodt suggested a meeting with the school board.
2. Planning Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Work Plan (Commission
Present)
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Chair Robertson stated the Commission would like to encourage more ideas from the Housing
Summit including cluster housing.
Council and staff discussed the 2008 Planning Commission Work Plan. Mayor Jacobs suggested the
Commission incorporate more walking ability and transit friendliness into the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested the Commission look into row houses and owner-occupied
low-income housing. He also suggested they look into the top ten redevelopment sites, allowing the
City to become pro-active rather than reactive.
Councilmember Paprocki suggested the Commission look at light rail station areas and the
north/south connections, which could result in traffic reroutes. Ms. McMonigal agreed and stated
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes March 24, 2008
Hennepin County was looking at station area fund studies and the findings would be included in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Sanger inquired about sub-standard lots. Ms. McMonigal stated there only a few
lots, because the zoning ordinance took into account and made provisions for existing smaller (40’
wide) lots.
Chair Johnston-Madison suggested Council have staff look at design and architectural options and
review guidelines for large houses, questioning if there should be limits placed. Councilmember
Sanger noted that there has not been support for architectural design review by the Council.
Council thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work.
3. West 36th Street Reconstruction Streetscape Update
Mr. Brink presented the staff report.
Council and staff had discussion on the proposed improvements and assessed future transportation,
pedestrian and bicycle needs.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City would need to acquire right-of-ways on the south side of
the road. Mr. Brink stated the streetscape improvements could be done within the existing right-of-
way. Mr. Locke stated they could acquire additional right-of-ways as further development warrants.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there were any plans for redevelopment of the Burlington Coat
Factory. Mr. Locke stated staff was unaware of any plans at this time. Councilmember Sanger also
inquired about the public art on the street. Ms. McMonigal stated the focus tonight was on the
engineering side of the project, stating the art had been incorporated into the plans and would be
available for their review at a future session.
4. Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract
Mr. Dunbar updated Council on the development of Hoigaard Village. He further requested an
extension of the commencement and completion dates, as well as a request for an additional
$200,000 in tax increment to finance greater than anticipated environmental remediation costs.
Council and staff discussed the extension request and increased tax increment options.
There was Council consensus to proceed with the developer’s requests and advised staff to prepare a
third amendment to the Redevelopment Contract.
5. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 2007 Annual Report and 2008 Goals
(Review)
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes March 24, 2008
Council discussed the Commission’s annual report and reviewed the 2008 goals.
Councilmember Sanger suggested the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) take more
initiative to provide more environmental practices in the park system. Mayor Jacobs suggested
reducing the City’s reliance on fossil-based fuel. Councilmember Paprocki suggested offering
community activities at the smaller parks. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if staff could provide a
report on the Recreation Center activity. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding another splash
pad.
6. BOZA 2007 Annual Report 2008 Goals (Review)
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
There was Council consensus to advise BOZA they were doing a great job and unless there were any
new and/or immerging issues, there was no need to meet with them.
7. Communications (verbal)
Mr. Harmening suggested Council lobby the County Board for their votes for the transit bill.
Mr. Harmening stated there was a request for a three-lot subdivision, Isabella Estates, and asked
Council if they wanted to be pro-active in trying to save the historic structure. Councilmember
Sanger stated the developer would be willing to stage the property and sell off the portion in
question for restoration. It was the consensus of Council to have staff review the request and
establish some guidelines that would allow the City to be pro-active in these situations.
Mr. Harmening updated Council on the ARINC proceedings.
The meeting adjourned at 09:06 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. February 2008 Financial Report
9. Redevelopment Agreement – Erv’s
10. Comprehensive Plan Update
11. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Second reading of an Ordinance for Vacation of a Portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement at
2535 and 2545 Huntington Ave.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the second reading of an Ordinance approving the vacation of a portion of a
drainage and utility easement over lots 1, 2 and 3, Biltmore Addition; and to approve the summary
and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there a need for the drainage and utility easement proposed to be vacated? The easement exists
because the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along all
property lines. The easement is not being used for any utility or drainage purpose, and staff does not
foresee a need to use it in the future.
BACKGROUND:
The Biltmore Addition plat was created in 2004 as a three lot subdivision. Drainage and utility
easements were created along all property lines within the subdivision. The builder constructed a
speculative home on Lot 2 in 2005. The home was sold in 2007; however, the new owners wanted
more land. To accommodate the new owners, the builder split Lot 3 in half, and combined each
half with the lot directly to the west. This resulted in a reduction of the number of lots from three
to two and it gave the new owners a larger back yard.
The people that purchased the house have since decided that they would like to add on to the side of
the house. To do this, they need to purchase the remaining lot, combine it with theirs and vacate
the drainage and utility easement that currently runs along the property line. This would result in a
further reduction in the number of lots from two to one. The lot combination is approved
administratively; however, the vacation of the drainage and utility easement is accomplished by
ordinance. The vacation requires a public hearing which was held by the Council on March 17,
2008, followed by City Council approval of the first reading of the ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading Utility Easement Vacation Biltmore Addition
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Survey showing portion of drainage and utility easement to be vacated
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.___________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT
2535 AND 2545 HUNTINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property
abutting upon both sides of the utility easement proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The
notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on March 6, 2008 and the
City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the utility
easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said
utility easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described utility easement as now dedicated and laid out
within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of Lot 3, Block 1, BILTMORE ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying westerly of the easterly 10.00 feet which lies 5.00 feet northerly and 5.00 feet southerly of
the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 1, said Block 1, BILTMORE ADDITION.
That part of the northerly 5.00 feet Lot 2, Block 1, BILTMORE ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota lying easterly of the westerly 10 feet thereof.
That part of the southerly 5.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, BILTMORE ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota lying easterly of the westerly 10.00 feet thereof.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the
Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Vacation of Utility Easement Biltmore Page 3
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE VACATING UTILITY EASEMENT
2535 and 2545 HUNTINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
This ordinance states that the utility easement located at 2535 and 2545 Huntington Avenue South
will be vacated.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2008
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: April 17, 2008
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Vacation of Utility Easement Biltmore Page 4
SURVEY
Easement to be Vacated
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Vacation of Utility Easement Biltmore Page 5
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Mn/DOT Agency Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a resolution directing the City to enter into an agency agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation relating to a grant awarded to the City by Transit for
Livable Communities.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The recommended action permits the City to utilize grant funds for planning awarded by Transit for
Livable Communities in 2007. The Community Development Department is considering hiring an
intern to perform the planning study and required work.
BACKGROUND:
The application for grant funds from the Federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program was
submitted in early 2007. In June of 2007 the City was notified by Transit for Livable Communities
that the application in the amount of $35,000 for a planning study had been accepted for funding.
The study will review the best methods to improve infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians in the
Xenia Avenue / Park Place Boulevard corridor. Partnering with the City of Golden Valley, the study
will address connections both north and south of I-394. Particularly important to the study will be
improved connections to Theodore Wirth Park and the Cedar Lake Trail; both are important parts
of the regional park and trail infrastructure and could be better utilized by residents and employees
in the area under consideration. Though the study will be completed under the direct supervision of
St. Louis Park staff, a high degree of cooperation with Golden Valley is expected.
It had been expected that this planning study would be underway in late 2007. However, due to a
late federal appropriations bill, the funding was unavailable until March 4, 2008. The grant process
has been somewhat complicated by the statutory funding mechanism, in which grantees were
selected by Transit for Livable Communities, but the federal funding must pass through Mn/DOT
in order to be provided to a local municipality. Mn/DOT has worked diligently to provide the City
with all necessary documentation for the planning study, while Transit for Livable Communities has
provided several workshops to provide additional background on planning for pedestrian and bicycle
issues. City staff has attended each of these workshops.
The attached contract states that it is for “Federal Participation in Preliminary Engineering.” The
standard language used by Mn/DOT in this agreement does not accurately reflect the intent of the
grant, which is to conduct a planning study. However, it is required that the City comply with the
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
use of standard Mn/DOT forms in order to receive the funding in a timely manner. The City
Attorney has been asked to review the agreement.
It is anticipated that staff will update the Council on the progress of the planning study in
September, 2008.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The action will enable the City to initiate, together with the City of Golden Valley, a planning study
of the area surrounding the Xenia Avenue / Park Place Boulevard corridor. The grant funds will
cover all costs of conducting the study, including the cost of the intern, although incidental Staff
time will be required for administration.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This planning study will address one of the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council in
2007, which is to develop an organized network of sidewalks and trails within the City.
Attachments: Resolution
Agency Agreement between the Minnesota State Department of
Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park
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 April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 08-______
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGENCY
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of
the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2007, the City of St. Louis Park was notified by Transit for
Livable Communities of its selection to receive $35,000.00 in planning funds from the Federal Non-
Motorized Transportation Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, in order to access those funds it is necessary to enter into an agency agreement
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
(1) That pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation
be appointed as Agent of the City of St. Louis Park to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which
may be made available for eligible transportation related projects; and
(2) That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on
behalf of the City to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation
prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in
“Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 92192,” a copy of which said
agreement was before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2008.
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
Mn/DOT Agreement No. 92192
STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
FOR
S.P. 163-091-001 and 128-091-001; M.P. NMTP 2708(158)
This agreement is entered into by and between City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and the State of Minnesota acting
through its Commissioner of Transportation (“Mn/DOT”),
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.36, the City desires Mn/DOT to act as the City's agent in accepting
federal funds on the City's behalf for the construction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation financed
either in whole or in part by federal funds, hereinafter referred to as the “Project”; and
The City is proposing a federal aid project to develop methods to improve conditions for pedestrian and
bicyclist for the Cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley in the Xenia / Park Place Corridor, and increase access
to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail, Theodore Wirth Park and The city of Minneapolis, hereinafter referred to as the
“Preliminary Engineering;” and
The Preliminary Engineering is eligible for the expenditure of federal aid funds, and is identified in
Mn/DOT records as State Project 163-091-001 and 128-091-001, and in Federal Highway Administration
(“FHWA”) records as Minnesota Project NMTP 2708 (158); and
Mn/DOT requires that the terms and conditions of this agency be set forth in an agreement.
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. DUTIES OF THE CITY.
A. DESIGNATION. The City designates Mn/DOT to act as its agent in accepting federal funds in its
behalf made available for the Project.
B. ELIGIBILITY / COSTS. The estimated cost of the Preliminary Engineering is $35,000.00.
1. It is anticipated that 100% (up to $ 35,000 of the cost of the Preliminary Engineering is to be paid
from federal funds made available by the FHWA. The City will pay any part of the cost or
expense of the work that the FHWA does not pay.
2. Any costs incurred by the City prior to authorization of the Federal Funds, will not be eligible for
federal participation.
3. Eligible cost and expense, if approved, may consist of the following:
a) The cost of conducting review and evaluation of current and future pedestrian and bicycle
transportation needs for the cities of St Louis Park and Golden Valley in the Xenia / Park
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
Place corridor.
b) The direct labor charges for City employees for the time that said employees are performing
work pursuant to this agreement must be documented in a Public Interest Finding and
approved by the FHWA. Said labor charges may include the prorata share of "labor
additives" applicable to said labor charges. Costs to the City of "labor additives" consisting of
holiday pay, vacation, sick leave, retirement, pension, unemployment taxes, compensation
and liability insurance, lost time charges and similar costs incidental to labor employment will
be reimbursed only when supported by adequate records.
c) The applicable equipment rental charges for City owned equipment used by the City and
mileage charges for employee owned vehicles used by the City on work performed pursuant
to this agreement, at rates reflective of the City actual cost.
d) Expenditures for materials, supplies, mechanical data processing and equipment rental,
limited to the actual expenditures for the purposes of this agreement.
e) The cost incurred by the City to employ outside forces to perform any or all of the work
pursuant to this agreement, subject to the provisions of section I.D. SUBLETTING.
4. Expenditures for general administration, supervision, maintenance and other overhead or
incidental expenses of the City are not eligible for federal participation.
5. Acceptability of costs under this agreement will be determined in accordance with the cost
principles and procedures set forth in the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations, Contract
Cost Principals and Procedures, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 31 which is hereby
incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement.
6. For costs expected to exceed $ 35,000, the City must request the preparation and execution of a
supplement to this agreement, prior to incurring such costs.
C. STAFFING.
1. The City will designate a publicly employed registered engineer, (“Project Engineer"), to be in
responsible charge of the Project and to supervise and direct the work performed under any
contract let for the Project. If City elects to use a private consultant for engineering services, the
City will provide a qualified, full-time public employee of the City, to be in responsible charge of
the Project. The services of the City to be performed pursuant to this agreement may not be
assigned, sublet, or transferred unless the City is notified in writing by Mn/DOT that such action is
permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23 CFR 635.105 and state law. This written consent will in no
way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work.
2. During the progress of the work on the Project, the City authorizes its Project Engineer to request
in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from Mn/DOT, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be covered by other technical service agreements. If
Mn/DOT furnishes the services requested, and if Mn/DOT requests reimbursement, then the City
will promptly pay Mn/DOT 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 Mn/DOT
labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have
been verified by audit. Provision of such services will not be deemed to make Mn/DOT a principal
or co-principal with respect to the Project.
3. The City will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly
supervise, inspect, and document the work for the Project.
D. SUBLETTING. The City will prepare request for proposals in accordance with Minnesota law and
applicable Federal laws and regulations.
1. The City will solicit proposals for Preliminary Engineering after obtaining written notification
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
from Mn/DOT that the FHWA has authorized the Project. Any Project advertised prior to
authorization will not be eligible for federal reimbursement.
2. The City will prepare the request for proposal, which will include all of the federal-aid provisions
supplied by Mn/DOT.
3. The City will prepare and publish the proposals solicitation for the Project as required by state and
federal laws. The City will include in the solicitation the required language for federal-aid
contracts as supplied by Mn/DOT. The solicitation will state where the City will receive the sealed
proposals.
4. The City may not include other work in the contract for the authorized Project without obtaining
prior notification from Mn/DOT that such work is allowed by FHWA. Failure to obtain such
notification may result in the loss of some or all of the federal funds for the Project.
5. The City will prepare proposal packages and prepare and distribute any addendums, if needed.
6. The City will receive, open, and evaluate proposals.
7. After the proposals are opened, the City will consider the proposals begin negotiations on the price
of the Preliminary Engineering in accordance with the practice commonly known as Quality
Based Selection. If the proposal contains a goal for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, the City
will not award the bid until it has received certification of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
participation from the Mn/DOT Equal Employment Opportunity Office.
8. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for
performance of the work. Subcontractor agreements must contain all appropriate terms and
conditions of this agreement.
E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
1. The City will request approval from Mn/DOT for all costs in excess of the amount of federal funds
previously approved for the Project prior to incurring such costs. Failure to obtain such approval
may result in such costs being disallowed for reimbursement.
2. The City will prepare reports, keep records, and perform work so as to enable Mn/DOT to collect
the federal aid sought by the City. The City will retain all records and reports in accordance with
Mn/DOT's record retention schedule for federal aid projects.
3. Upon completion of the Project, the Project Engineer will determine whether the work will be
accepted.
F. PAYMENTS.
1. The entire cost of the Project is to be paid from federal funds made available by the FHWA and by
other funds provided by the City. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the Project
that is not paid by federal funds.
2. The City may request partial payments not more than once each thirty (30) days. The Project
Engineer will certify each partial payment.
3. The invoice and supplements thereto, will contain all details that may be necessary for a proper
audit. Such details will consist of at least the following:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
(a) A breakdown of labor by individual, classification, dates and hours worked
times the applicable rate to arrive at a total dollar amount for each individual.
(b) The labor additive shall be applied to total labor dollars.
(c) The equipment charges shall be broken down by type of equipment times the
applicable rate and dates used to arrive at total equipment charges.
(d) A detailed breakdown of outside services used and supporting invoices and
documentation that costs of outside services have been paid.
(e) Detail for materials, supplies, and other items with the description, units, and
unit prices included in the invoice. If materials or supplies are purchased from
an outside source, a copy of that invoice should be included.
(f) The invoices will include 100% of eligible charges applicable to the Preliminary
Engineering so that the prorata share of federal and City participation can be
applied to the total costs.
4. Following certification of the final estimate, the City may request reimbursement for costs eligible
for federal funds. The City's request will be made to Mn/DOT and will include a copy of the
certified final estimate along with the required records.
5. Reimbursement of costs under this agreement will be based on actual costs.
G. LIMITATIONS.
1. The City will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and
regulations.
2. Nondiscrimination. It is the policy of the FHWA and the State of Minnesota that no person in the
United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. 2000d). Through expansion of the mandate for
nondiscrimination in Title VI and through parallel legislation, the prescribed bases of
discrimination include race, color, sex, national origin, age, and disability. In addition, the Title
VI program has been extended to cover all programs, activities and services of an entity receiving
Federal financial assistance, whether such programs and activities are Federally assisted or not.
Even in the absence of prior discriminatory practice or usage, a recipient in administering a
program or activity to which this part applies, is expected to take affirmative action to assure that
no person is excluded from participation in, or is denied the benefits of, the program or activity on
the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. It is the responsibility of the City
to carry out the above requirements.
3. Workers’ Compensation. Any and all employees of the City or other persons while engaged in the
performance of any work or services required or permitted by the City under this agreement will
not be considered employees of Mn/DOT, and any and all claims that may arise under the
Workers’ Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees, or other persons while so
engaged, will in no way be the obligation or responsibility of Mn/DOT. The City will require
proof of Workers’ Compensation Insurance from any contractor and sub-contractor.
H. AUDIT.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 8
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
1. The City will comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular
A-133 including amendments and successors thereto, which are incorporated herein by reference.
2. As provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, all books, records,
documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the City are subject to examination by the
United States Government, Mn/DOT, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as
appropriate, for a minimum of six years. The City will be responsible for any costs associated
with the performance of the audit.
I. MAINTENANCE. The City assumes full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of any
facility constructed or improved under this Agreement.
J. CLAIMS. The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is acting only as the City/s agent for acceptance
and disbursement of federal funds, and not as a principal or co-principal with respect to the
Project. The City will pay any and all lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the Project
including, without limitation, claims related to contractor selection (including the solicitation,
evaluation, and acceptance or rejection of bids or proposals), acts or omissions in performing the
Project work, and any ultra vires acts. The City will indemnify, defend (to the extent permitted by
the Minnesota Attorney General), and hold Mn/DOT harmless from any claims or costs arising
out of or incidental to the Project, including reasonable attorney fees incurred by Mn/DOT. The
City’s indemnification obligation extends to any actions related to the certification of DBE
participation, even if such actions are recommended by Mn/DOT.
II. DUTIES OF Mn/DOT.
A. ACCEPTANCE. Mn/DOT accepts designation as Agent of the City for the receipt and
disbursement of federal funds and will act in accordance herewith.
B. PROJECT ACTIVITIES.
1. Mn/DOT will make the necessary requests to the FHWA for authorization to use federal funds for
the Project, and for reimbursement of eligible costs pursuant to the terms of this agreement.
2. Mn/DOT will provide to the City copies of the required Federal-aid clauses to be included in the
proposal solicitation and will provide the required Federal-aid provisions to be included in the
Proposal.
3. Mn/DOT will review and certify the DBE participation and notify the City when certification is
complete. If certification of DBE participation cannot be obtained, then the City must decide
whether to proceed with awarding the contract. Failure to obtain such certification will result in
the project becoming ineligible for federal assistance, and the City must make up any shortfall.
C. PAYMENTS.
1. Mn/DOT will receive the federal funds paid by the FHWA for the Project, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes § 161.36, Subdivision 2.
2. Mn/DOT will review and certify each partial pay request. Following certification of the partial
estimate, Mn/DOT will reimburse the City, from said federal funds made available to the Project,
for each partial payment request, subject to the availability and limits of those funds.
3. Upon completion of the Project, the City will prepare a final payment request in accordance with
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 9
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
the terms of this agreement. Mn/DOT will review and certify the final payment request with a
final audit.
4. No more than 90% of the reimbursement due under this agreement will be paid until completion
of the final audit and approval by Mn/DOT’s authorized representative.
5. If Mn/DOT does not obtain funding from the FHWA or other funding source, or funding cannot
be continued at a sufficient level to allow for the processing of the federal aid reimbursement
requests, the City may continue the work with local funds only, until such time as Mn/DOT is able
to process the federal aid reimbursement requests.
D. AUTHORITY. Mn/DOT may withhold federal funds, if Mn/DOT or the FHWA determines that
the Project was not completed in compliance with federal requirements.
E. INSPECTION. Mn/DOT, the FHWA, or duly authorized representatives of the state and federal
government will have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor the work performed under this
agreement. The City will make available all books, records, and documents pertaining to the work
hereunder, for a minimum of seven years following the closing of the construction contract.
III. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each authorized representative will have responsibility to
administer this agreement and to ensure that all payments due to the other party are paid pursuant to the
terms of this agreement.
A. The City authorized representative is Kevin Locke, Community Development Director, City of St.
Louis Park, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, phone 952-924-2580, or his
successor.
B. Mn/DOT’s authorized representative is Lynnette Roshell, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, State Aid for Local Transportation, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 500, St
Paul, MN 55155, phone 651-366-3822, or her successor.
IV. TORT LIABILITY. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the
extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of any others and the results
thereof. The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs Mn/DOT liability.
V. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party will assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this agreement
without prior written approval of the other party.
VI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments/supplements to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by
the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office.
VII. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement will be effective upon execution by the City and by
appropriate State officials, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, and will remain in effect for two
(2) years from the effective date or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
VIII. TERMINATION. This agreement may be terminated by the City or Mn/DOT at any time, with or without
cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such termination will not remove any
unfulfilled financial obligations of the City as set forth in this Agreement. In the event of such a termination
the City will be entitled to reimbursement for Mn/DOT-approved federally eligible expenses incurred for
work satisfactorily performed on the Project to the date of termination subject to the terms of this
agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 10
Subject: MnDOT Agency Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound
thereby.
CITY
City certifies that the appropriate person(s)
have executed the contract on its behalf as required by applicable resolutions, ordinances, or charter provisions
By: ________________________________________
Date:_______________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
By: ________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By: ________________________________________
Title: Director, .
State Aid for Local Transportation
Date: ___________________________________
COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION
By:_________________________________________
Date:_______________________________________
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Change Order No. 5 to Contract 15-07 – Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard Lift Station (LS) #18
and Force Main (FM) - City Project No. 2005-1200.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. 15-07, Sanitary Sewer Project – Shelard
LS#18 and FM - Project No. 2005-1200 located at North I-394 Frontage Road and Ford Road.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
History
Previous Contract Information
The City Council approved Contract No. 15-07 on February 20, 2007 with Gridor Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $468,377.00 for lift station and force main rehabilitation at the North I-394
Frontage Road (Wayzata Boulevard) and Ford Road.
On April 6, 2007 Change Order No. 1 was approved for a credit in the amount of $2,500 due the
reduction in warranty time for the generator from the generator manufacturer.
On June 22, 2007 Change Order No. 2 was approved for an increase in cost in the amount of
$956.00 due to the need to change the pipe type due to the pipe depth.
On October 1, 2007 Change Order No. 3 was approved for an increase in the amount of $1,678.00
to replace the existing wooden pole for the electronic SCADA warning system with a fiberglass mast
pole.
On November 19, 2007 Change Order No. 4 was approved for an increase in the amount of
$35,401.00 due to need to change some roadway excavation and force main repair/replacement for a
short section of pipe.
Proposed Contract Change
A component of the project is to install a new liner in the existing force main to upgrade the pipe to
new pipe standards without having to dig up the entire roadway. When attempting to complete this
work, the contractor encountered a problem where they needed to do additional work involved with
changing the gas piping to the Generator. This work was not anticipated in the original contract
and will result in an increase to the contract in the amount of $754.00.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Change Order No. 5 to Contract 15-07 – Ford Rd Lift Station – Project 2005-1200
Due to conditions beyond the Contractors control (weather and problems with the City’s as-built
drawings) the Substantial Completion date is proposed to be change from November 14, 2007 (210
days from the date of Note to Begin Work) to December 5, 2007. Subsequently, the Final
Completion date would be changed from November 29, 2007 to twenty-one days (21) from May 1,
2008, or twenty-one days (21) after Mn/DOT road restrictions are lifted, whichever comes first.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
This project is being funded from the Sewer Utility Fund budget. There are adequate funds
available in the Sewer Utility Fund to cover the cost of the additional work. The original contract
amount is $468,377.00; the increase for Change Orders 1-5 is $36,289.00 bringing the total
contract amount to $504,666.00.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Exhibit “A” - Change Order No. 5
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed By: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Change Order No. 5 to Contract 15-07 – Ford Rd Lift Station – Project 2005-1200
EXHIBIT “A”
Contract No.: 15-07
Change Order No.: 5 Date: April 7, 2008
Project Name: Ford Road Lift Station
Project Location: North I-394 Frontage Road and Ford Road
Contractor: Gridor Construction, Inc. 3990 27th Street SE
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone No. 763/746-9077
Type of Work: Lift Station Rehabilitation
Amount of Original Contract: $468,377.00
Description of Work to be Added or Deleted:
• Generator gas piping: Costs for the additional work involved with changing the gas piping to the
Generator.
• Substantial Completion date shall be changed from November 14, 2007 (210 days from the date of
Note to Begin Work) to December 5, 2007. Subsequently, the Final Completion date shall be
changed from November 29, 2007 to twenty-one days (21) from May 1, 2008 or twenty-one days
(21) after Mn/DOT road restrictions are lifted, whichever comes first.
Total Change Order No. 5 Amount:$754.00
Original Contract Price:$468,377.00
Previous Change Order(s) Amount :$35,535.00
Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders:$504,666.00
Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in
original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein.
Recommended:
City Engineer (or Designee) Date Director of Public Works Date
Approved:
City Manager Date Mayor Date
We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at the
above stated price.
Approved: _____________________________ ___________________________________
Date Authorized Contractor Signature
NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract.
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Authorize Cooperative Agreement for Leasing Fire Department Breathing Apparatus.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to execute joint and cooperative agreement for leasing and use of self-contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to participate in a cooperative agreement with other cities for leasing
breathing apparatus for the Fire Department?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Fire Department is an active participant in the southwest suburbs automatic
aid/mutual aid/box alarm system. These various systems currently encompass an area of ten
communities from Minneapolis to Bloomington, over to Minnetonka and Chanhassen.
As the various communities continue to respond to incidents together, breathing apparatus has
become an issue. Different communities use different equipment, resulting in potentially hazardous
conditions, possibly even life threatening, from a lack of common equipment.
The attached joint powers agreement is an effort to allow all participating organizations the ability to
look at the feasibility of leasing the same breathing equipment, ideally tested and maintained by the
manufacturer, resulting in increased interoperability and life safety. This agreement will allow us to
look at the cost and then determine if this program is in the best interest of the city. The idea is for
one city to act as the lead agency in obtaining bid proposals from manufacturers, but each city would
enter into its own contract with the company for the number of units that they need. There would
be an operating committee who would oversee the selection and use of the equipment. The initial
parties would be the cities of St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Minnetonka,
but other cities could join if they wish.
The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Entering into this agreement does not obligate the city from a financial perspective at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Joint Agreement for Leasing Fire Breathing Apparatus
Attachments: Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Leasing and Use of SCBA
Prepared by: Mark Windschitl, Assistant Chief
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
JOINT & COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR LEASING AND USE OF SCBA
1. Purpose
This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 which authorizes the joint and
cooperative exercise of governmental powers common to contracting parties. The intent of this
Agreement is to make available leased self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to the
governmental agencies who are parties to this Agreement.
2. Parties
The initial parties to this Agreement are the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, and
Minnetonka, all of which are municipal corporations and subdivisions of the state of Minnesota.
Additional governmental agencies may become parties to this Agreement by adopting a
resolution approving this Agreement and send an original execution page and a certified copy of
the resolution to the secretary of the Operating Committee established below. The secretary of
the Operating Committee must maintain a current list of the parties to this Agreement and must
notify the contact person for each party whenever there is a change in the parties to this
Agreement.
3. Operating Committee
3.1. Creation.
There will be an Operating Committee (the “Committee”) to administer this Agreement. The
Committee will consist of one representative appointed by each of the parties to the Agreement.
In the absence of a specific appointment, a party’s representative will be its fire chief. Each
member of the Committee is entitled to one vote.
3.2. Procedural Rules.
The Committee must adopt procedural rules to govern its operations.
3.3. Officers.
The Committee will select from its members a chair to conduct meetings, a vice-chair to act in
the place of the chair, and a secretary to keep the records of the Committee.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Authorize Coop Agmt for Leasing Breathing Apparatus Page 3
3.4. Powers, Duties.
The Committee has the authority and responsibility to administer this Agreement on behalf of the
parties and to take all necessary actions allowed by law to implement its terms.
4. Procedures For SCBA
4.1. Leasing SCBA.
The Committee will take all of the actions necessary for leasing SCBA to serve its members. The
Committee will comply with the Municipal Contracting Law, including the preparation of
specifications and request for proposals. The Committee will designate one of the member
parties to act as the lead agency for selecting the contractor, based on the recommendation of the
Committee.
4.2. Contract Terms.
The contract with the selected contractor (the “Leasing Contract”) must provide that each party
to this Agreement will order SCBA directly from the contractor and make payments directly to
the contractor. The Leasing Contract must provide a specific number of SCBA to be initially
provided to each party and must establish the circumstances under which additional SCBA may
be ordered. No party will have any responsibility for paying for the number of SCBA designated
for, or ordered by, any other party. The Leasing Contract must provide that the contractor will
own, maintain, and certify the SCBA and will replace the SCBA as needed. The Leasing
Contract must provide the terms of payment to the contractor for this service.
4.3. Rules for use of SCBA.
The Committee will establish rules and procedures for the use of the SCBA by the parties,
including determining the responsibility for damage to, or loss of, the SCBA.
5. Responsibility for Employees
All persons engaged in the work to be performed by a party under this Agreement may not be
considered employees of any other party for any purpose, including worker’s compensation and
other claims that may or might arise out of the employment context on behalf of the employees.
All claims made by a third party as a result of any act or omission of a party’s employees while
engaged on any of the work performed under this Agreement are not the obligation or
responsibility of any other party. Each party is responsible for injuries or death of its own
personnel. Each party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage,
covering its own personnel while they are providing services under 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.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Authorize Coop Agmt for Leasing Breathing Apparatus Page 4
6. Indemnification
Each party agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other parties against any and all
claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and
caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the party and/or those of its employees
or agents. Under no circumstances, however, may a party be required to pay on behalf of itself
and 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 two or more parties
may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for one party. The
intent of this paragraph is to impose on each party a limited duty to defend and indemnify each
other subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 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 liability claims against both parties from a single
occurrence to be defended by a single attorney.
7. Duration
This agreement will be in force from the date of execution by at least two parties and notification
to the secretary of the Operating Committee. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement upon
30 days written notice to the other party or parties to the Agreement.
8. Execution
A separate execution page is provided for each party.
[Signature pages follow]
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Authorize Coop Agmt for Leasing Breathing Apparatus Page 5
Execution Page for the
Joint & Cooperative Agreement
For Leasing and Use Of SBCA
The party listed below has read, agreed to and executed this Agreement on the date indicated.
Date ____________________ Entity _____________________________
By _________________________________
Title ______________________________
And _________________________________
Title ______________________________
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Authorize Coop Agmt for Leasing Breathing Apparatus Page 6
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the Resolution Approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Lake
Street Office Center LLC and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority for the
redevelopment of the former Erv’s Garage Property located at 7102 and 7104 Lake Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Contract for Private Redevelopment with Lake
Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling) as presented?
BACKGROUND:
Real Estate Recycling (RER) plans to cleanup and redevelop the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair
Garage site located at 7102 and 7104 Lake Street West (the “subject property”). Upon the removal
of the existing building and billboards on the site, RER’s environmental response action plan calls
for excavation and treatment of the contaminated soils and then capping those soils on site with a
new building and parking lot. Once the contamination on the property has been properly addressed
and the site prepared for redevelopment, RER proposes to construct a 4,000 square foot office
building called the Lake Street Office Center.
On February 4, 2008, the EDA approved the Letter of Intent between Lake Street Office Center
LLC (Real Estate Recycling). Included as part of this agreement was a provision stipulating that the two
parties “negotiate towards a definitive Contract providing generally for (a) tax increment assistance of
$400,000; (b) disbursement of proceeds of the Grants to Redeveloper for remediation activities in
accordance with the respective grant agreements; and (3) timely construction of the Project by
Redeveloper”.
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Interest was expressed at the November 13th Study Session in seeing the subject property cleaned up
and redeveloped; however, the 1,770 square foot restaurant building proposed for the site was not
favorably received. Real Estate Recycling was asked to consider a higher use for the property such as
an office building. RER subsequently redesigned its site plan and now proposes to construct a 4,000
square foot office building on the site (see revised site plan). The new facility would incorporate
many “green” features and would be attractively designed to complement RER’s newly constructed
office/showroom building immediately across the street.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
Current and Proposed Market Value
The 2008 assessed value for the subject property equals $377,000. This reflects the fact that the
building is aging, substandard and usable primarily for storage purposes. Upon redevelopment, the
land and office building would have an estimated assessed value of at least $900,000.
Job Creation
RER estimates the proposed office building will provide 21 full-time jobs. The quality of these jobs
will be higher than if the property was redeveloped as a retail use.
Need for Financial Assistance
The dilemma RER faces with this project is that the real value of the property is in the building and
billboards. Since the building and billboards are to be removed, they have no economic value as
collateral for a bank loan but nonetheless their value must be reflected in the property purchase
price. In addition, the cost of the property can’t be recovered with the proposed project given that
the square footage of the site dictates a very small building. Revised total project costs for the
acquisition, cleanup and construction of the proposed commercial building are $1,744,970. Along
with RER’s equity, a construction loan from First National Bank of Omaha will cover the costs
associated with the market value of the land and the construction of the new building. RER’s
project pro forma however reflects a shortfall of $721,000. RER proposed to fill the project shortfall
with $321,000 in grant funding (to cover cleanup costs), and $400,000 from the city (to cover a
portion of the property cost and removal of the structures). With the grants and proposed city
assistance RER would achieve a nominal market rate of return. The source of funds for the city’s
assistance would be derived from pooled tax increment from the Victoria Ponds TIF District.
Redevelopment Contract
The proposed Contract for Private Redevelopment between the City, EDA and Lake Street Office
Center LLC is modeled after the recently approved Redevelopment Contract with Anderson
Builders for its proposed Oak Hill II office building. The primary difference between the two
contracts is the source of financing and the fact that the EDA will also be disbursing grant funds for
the cleanup of the former Erv’s Garage property. The attached contract with Lake Street Office
Center LLC is summarized below. The EDA and Redeveloper’s attorneys are continuing to hone
and refine the details of the agreement. Any substantive revisions will be brought to the EDA’s
attention.
Lake Street Office Center LLC agrees to properly remove the existing structures (building and two
billboards) at 7102 and 7104 Lake Street, properly remediate the soils on the property in
conformance with the MPCA-approved Voluntary Response Action Plan (VRAP), and construct a
4,000 SF office building to be known as Lake Street Office Center according to approved
construction plans.
The EDA agrees to disburse proceeds of the DEED, Met Council, and Hennepin County
environmental remediation grants it obtained (totaling $321,000) to Redeveloper for qualified
remediation activities in accordance with the EDA’s grant agreements with these agencies.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
The Redeveloper agrees to provide annual reports to the EDA for five years so as to allow the EDA
to be in compliance with the grant agreements.
During work on the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper must post a sign on the site containing the
following or similar language:
This project was financed in part through the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, with grant funds provided by the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Fund,
and by grants from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
and Hennepin County.
The Redeveloper agrees to begin construction on the project by July 1, 2008 and complete it by
December 31, 2008. The Redeveloper agrees to remove the two existing billboards on the property
by July 1, 2008. The project will be deemed complete upon issuance of a final Certificate of
Completion.
In order to make the proposed project financially feasible, the EDA will reimburse the Redeveloper for a
portion of the costs of acquisition of the Redevelopment Property incurred by the Redeveloper (the
“Public Redevelopment Costs”), through issuance of a Tax Increment Note in the maximum principal
amount of $400,000. The RER Note will be issued upon satisfaction of numerous requirements
specified in the Contract including EDA acceptance of the Redeveloper’s Public Redevelopment
Costs. The Note will be secured primarily by available Tax Increment from the Victoria Ponds TIF
District. The Note will bear an interest rate of 5.74 % per annum. Principal and interest payments to
the Redeveloper will be paid according to a Payment Schedule starting August 1, 2008 and will paid
every February 1 and August 1 thereafter through February 1, 2013.
Rather than creating a new TIF District for this relatively small project, the EDA has decided to use
available tax increment from the Victoria Ponds TIF District as security for the RER Note. Due to
limitations on tax increment contained in the “pooling rules” of the TIF Act, the amount of pooled
TIF available directly from the Victoria Ponds TIF District for the RER Note is estimated to be
approximately $300,000. The remaining $100,000 in assistance will be provided from excess
Victoria Ponds tax increment returned to the county and distributed back to the city. These funds
will be more than enough to meet the remaining $100,000 obligation to RER and are estimated to
be $275,000. It is for this reason that both the EDA and the City need to be party to the Contract.
Before issuance and delivery of the Note, Redeveloper must submit to the EDA (i) a copy of the closing
statement and certificate of real estate value in connection with the Redeveloper’s acquisition of the
Redevelopment Property; and (ii) Construction Plans. The EDA will deliver the Note upon receipt and
approval of the closing statement and certificate of real estate value evidencing Public Redevelopment
Costs in at least the principal amount of the Note and the Construction Plans for the Minimum
Improvements.
The Contract contains a Look Back Provision which allows the EDA to review the final project
proforma to determine how the project actually performed upon 95 percent occupancy or sale
within 5 years. If the project performs better than anticipated, meaning interest rate, construction
costs and other costs are lower and/or lease rates are higher and the Redeveloper achieves an Internal
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
Rate of Return exceeding 12%, the EDA has the opportunity to reduce the amount of assistance
provided.
Upon execution of the Contract the Redeveloper agrees to pay the EDA a TIF Application Fee of
$2,000. In addition, until the Maturity Date, the Redeveloper is responsible to pay all reasonable out of
pocket costs for legal and financial advising services incurred by the EDA that are attributable to or
incurred in connection with the negotiation and preparation of the Contract and other documents and
agreements in connection with the development.
The financial assistance to be provided to the Redeveloper does not constitute a business subsidy
under state statutes as it meets the Redevelopment exemption.
Before issuance of the Note, the Redeveloper and the EDA agree to execute a Minimum Assessment
Agreement specifying the assessor’s minimum market value for the improved property. The amount of
minimum market value for this project will be $900,000 as of January 2, 2009.
In order to facilitate the Redeveloper obtaining financing for the project, the EDA agrees to subordinate
its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage.
The Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the subject property, except to an affiliate, until after the project
is completed. Should the Redeveloper seek to transfer the property, the proposed transferee must be
acceptable to the EDA and is subject to same terms and conditions specified in the Contract.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling) would be provided with $400,000 upon
acquisition, remediation and redevelopment of former Erv’s Garage Property located at 7102 and
7104 Lake Street. The funds would be disbursed from available pooled tax increment derived from
the Victoria Ponds TIF District.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project is consistent with the Strategic Directions of Vision St. Louis Park as it relates
to environmental stewardship. It is also consistent with the goals expressed in the Redevelopment
section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA, City and Lake Street
Office Center LLC
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND LAKE
STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) and the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the “Authority”) have heretofore approved the establishment of the
Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (the “Project”) and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of
financing certain improvements within the Project, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799.
1.02. To facilitate redevelopment of certain property within the Project, the City proposes
to enter into a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) between the Authority, the
City, and Lake Street Office Center LLC (the “Redeveloper”).
1.03. Pursuant to the Contract, the Authority will issue its Tax Increment Revenue Note
(the “Note”) to the Redeveloper as reimbursement for certain costs of land acquisition, and will
pledge Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) as security for the Note.
1.04. Pursuant to the Contract, the City will pledge City Revenues Derived from Excess
Increment (as defined in the Contract) as additional security for the Note.
Section 2. Contract Approved.
2.01. The Council hereby approves the Contract as presented to the Council, including its
pledge of City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment as security for the Note, and authorizes the
Mayor and City Manager to execute such Contract in substantially the form on file with the City,
subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and are approved by such
officials, provided that execution of the Contract by such officials is conclusive evidence of their
approval.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 6
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
2.02. City staff and officials are authorized and directed to take any and all additional steps
and actions necessary or convenient in order to accomplish the intent of this Resolution, including
without limitation execution of any documents to which the City is a party referenced in or attached
to the Contract, , all as described in the Contract.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2008.
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
328776v4 MNI SA285-88
Fourth draft, April 3, 2008
CONTRACT
FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
By and Between
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
and
LAKE STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC
Dated as of: __________, 2008
This document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 337-9300
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 7
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREAMBLE .........................................................................................................................................1
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions.......................................................................................................................3
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority d City........................................................................7
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper....................................................7
ARTICLE III
Land Acquisition and Conveyance
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property.................................................................................9
Section 3.2. Environmental Undertakings..........................................................................................9
Section 3.3. Grant Disbursement........................................................................................................9
Section 3.4. Issuance of Note............................................................................................................11
Section 3.5. Lookback.......................................................................................................................12
Section 3.6. Payment of Administrative Costs ................................................................................12
Section 3.7. Business Subsidy Provisions........................................................................................12
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum Improvements...................................................................14
Section 4.2. Site Plan and Construction Plans .................................................................................14
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction......................................................15
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion.............................................................................................15
Section 4.5. Billboard........................................................................................................................16
Section 4.6. Records..........................................................................................................................16
Section 4.7. Reports...........................................................................................................................16
Section 4.8. Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................17
Section 4.9. Contract Requirements.................................................................................................17
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance .......................................................................................................................18
Section 5.2. Subordination................................................................................................................19
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 8
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 ii
ARTICLE VI
Tax Increment; Taxes
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes...............................................................................20
Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes.......................................................................................................20
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreements...............................................................................................20
ARTICLE VII
Financing
Section 7.1. Redeveloper Financing.................................................................................................21
Section 7.2. Subordination................................................................................................................21
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Development...............................................................................22
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement............................................................................................22
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants......................................................................23
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined............................................................................................25
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default.....................................................................................................25
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive..................................................................................................26
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver..........................................................26
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Authority and City Representatives Not
Individually Liable........................................................................................................27
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity..................................................................................27
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use.......................................................................................................27
Section 10.4. Titles of Articles and Sections......................................................................................27
Section 10.5. Notices and Demands...................................................................................................27
Section 10.6. Counterparts..................................................................................................................28
Section 10.7. Recording......................................................................................................................28
Section 10.8. Minnesota Law..............................................................................................................28
Section 10.9. Disclaimer of Relationships .........................................................................................28
Section 10.10. Modifications................................................................................................................28
Section 10.11. Approvals......................................................................................................................28
TESTIMONIUM .................................................................................................................................S-1
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 9
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 iii
SIGNATURES ....................................................................................................................................S-2
SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property
SCHEDULE B Site Plan
SCHEDULE C Grant-Eligible Costs
SCHEDULE D Draw Request
SCHEDULE E Authorizing Resolution
SCHEDULE F Redeveloper Repayment Example
SCHEDULE G Certificate of Completion
SCHEDULE H Form of Assessment Agreement
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 10
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 1
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the _________ day of _____, 2008, by and between the
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and
politic (the “Authority”), established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081
(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (the “City”), and LAKE STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to the Act and was authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote redevelopment of land
that is characterized by blight and blighting factors within the City, and for this purpose the
Authority has created Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in the
City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended (the “HRA Act”);
and
WHEREAS, the Authority and City have heretofore established a redevelopment tax
increment financing district known as the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District (the
“TIF District”) within the Project Area and adopted a financing plan (the “TIF Plan”) for the TIF
District in order to facilitate redevelopment of certain property in the Project, all pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended (the “TIF Act”);
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper intends to purchase property within the Project (the
“Redevelopment Property”) and to develop the Redevelopment Property for and in accordance with
this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and City believe that the redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of this Agreement, are in the vital
and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in
accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and
requirements under which activities within the Project have been undertaken and are being assisted;
and
WHEREAS, consistent with the TIF Plan, the Authority and City are willing to provide
financial assistance in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the others as follows:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 11
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 2
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears
from the context:
“Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended.
“Affiliate” means with respect to entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited liability
company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common control
with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization or
similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such Affiliate).
For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common control
with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other
business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such entity or
possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management
policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by contract or
otherwise.
“Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified,
amended, or supplemented.
“Assessment Agreement” means any Assessment Agreement entered into pursuant to
Section 6.3 hereof.
“Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority.
“Authority Representative” means the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director
of the Authority, or any person designated in writing by the Executive Director to serve as Authority
Representative.
“Authorizing Resolution” means the resolutions of the Authority, substantially in the form
of attached Schedule E to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the issuance of the Note.
“Available Tax Increment” has the meaning described in the Authorizing Resolution.
“Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as
amended.
“City” means the City of St. Louis Park.
“Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Redeveloper, or the
purchaser of any part, parcel or unit of the Redevelopment Property, pursuant to Section 4.4 of this
Agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 12
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 3
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
“Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on
the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property,
including the Minimum Improvements, which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications,
drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the
City, and (b) shall include at least the following: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) basement
plans; (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all
sides); (7) landscape plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the
Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed
construction work.
“County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
“County Grant Agreement” means the Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement
between the Authority and Hennepin County, by and through its Department of Environmental
Services, dated as of ______________, 2008.
“DEED” means the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.
“DEED Grant Agreement” means the Contamination Cleanup Program Grant Agreement
between DEED and the Authority dated as of December 21, 2007.
“Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this
Agreement.
“Grant-Eligible Costs” means the costs eligible for funding under the DEED Grant
Agreement, the County Grant Agreement and the Met Council Grant Agreement, as described in
Schedule C.
“Holder” means the owner of a Mortgage.
“HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended.
“LOI” means the Letter of Intent between the Authority and Redeveloper dated February 8,
2008.
“Material Change” means a change in the Construction Plans (excluding buyer options and
upgrades) that increase or decrease construction costs by $100,000 or more.
“Maturity Date” means the date that the Note has been paid in full, redeemed or prepaid, or
defeased in accordance with its terms.
“Met Council” means the Metropolitan Council.
“Met Council Grant Agreement” means the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant
Agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the Authority dated as of ___________, 2008.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 13
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 4
“Minimum Improvements” means the construction on the Redevelopment Property of an
approximately 4,000 SF office building, to be known as the Lake Street Office Center, pursuant to
the approved Construction Plans.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper or its Affiliate which is secured,
in whole or in part, with the Redevelopment Property.
“MPCA” means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
“Net Proceeds” means any proceeds paid by an insurer to the Redeveloper under a policy
or policies of insurance required to be provided and maintained by the Redeveloper pursuant to
Article V of this Agreement and remaining after deduction of all expenses (including fees and
disbursements of counsel) incurred in the collection of such proceeds.
“Note” means the Tax Increment Revenue Note to be issued by the Authority as described
in Section 3.4 hereof.
“Parcel” means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property.
“Project” means the City’s Redevelopment District No. 1.
“Project Area” means the real property located within the boundaries of the Project.
“Public Redevelopment Costs” means the Redeveloper verified costs associated with the
acquisition of the Redevelopment Property.
“Redeveloper” means Lake Street Office Center LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, and any permitted successors and assigns of Redeveloper.
“Redevelopment Plan” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
District No. 1 as modified April 7, 2008 and as it may be further modified.
“Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this
Agreement.
“Site Plan” means the site plan attached as Schedule B.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes which is paid with respect to
the property located within the TIF District and which is remitted to the City as tax increment
pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. The term Tax Increment does not include any amounts retained
by or payable to the State auditor under Section 469.177, subd. 11 or the Tax Increment Act, or any
amounts described in Section 469.174, subd. 25, clauses (2) through (4) of the Tax Increment Act.
“Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 14
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 5
Tax Increment District” or “TIF District” means the City’s Victoria Ponds Tax Increment
Financing District, as modified.
“Tax Increment Plan” or “TIF Plan” means the City’s Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District, as approved April 1, 1996, as amended April 7,
2008, and as it may be further amended.
“Tax Official” means any County assessor; County auditor; County or State board of
equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax
court of the State, or the State Supreme Court.
“Transfer” has the meaning provided in Section 8.2(a).
“Unavoidable Delays” means delays caused by encountering unanticipated underground
obstructions or environmental contamination and delays which are the direct result of war,
terrorism, strikes, other labor troubles, unforeseen delays in obtaining construction materials,
machinery, and/or equipment, fire or other casualty, litigation commenced by third parties which,
by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal,
state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority in enforcing its rights under this
Agreement) which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays in the
Redeveloper’s obtaining of permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction
of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of
this Agreement, unless such delays are beyond the normal time period for approval.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 15
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 6
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority and City. (a) The Authority is an economic
development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the
provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement
and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The City is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State, and is a state public body under Section 469.041 of the HRA Act. Under the provisions of
its charter and the HRA Act, the City has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its
obligations hereunder.
(c) The activities of the Authority and City are undertaken for the purpose of fostering
the redevelopment of certain real property that is or was occupied primarily by substandard and
obsolete buildings, which redevelopment will revitalize this portion of the Project, increase tax base,
and create employment opportunities.
(d) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate redevelopment of the Minimum
Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtaining
necessary administrative, environmental and land use approvals.
(e) The Authority has received no notice or communication arising under law or from
any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the
Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation or any other
local, state or federal laws or regulations. The Authority is aware of no facts the existence of
which would cause it to be, by virtue of the execution of this Agreement and performance of its
obligations herein, in violation of any local, state or federal development or environmental law,
regulation or review procedure.
(f) The Minimum Improvements are allowed uses under the zoning ordinances of the
City consistent with the Project Plan.
(g) The Authority will issue the Note, subject to all the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper
represents and warrants that:
(a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company duly organized and in good standing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its bylaws, its
operating agreement or (to the best of its knowledge) the laws of the State, is duly authorized to
transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly
authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its
members.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 16
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 7
(b) If the conditions precedent to construction occur, and subject to the terms, covenants
and conditions herein, the Redeveloper will comply with its agreement to construct, operate and
maintain the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the
Redevelopment Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited
to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations).
(c) The Redeveloper has received no notice or communication from any local, state or
federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the Project Area may be or
will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or
communications of which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is aware of no facts the
existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any
local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure.
(d) To the extent the Redeveloper is required to construct the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with
all local, state or federal energy-conservation laws or regulations.
(e) The Redeveloper will use all reasonable effort to secure all required permits,
licenses and approvals, and to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum
Improvements may be lawfully constructed.
(f) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of,
the terms, conditions or provisions of any partnership or company restriction or any evidences of
indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a
party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
(g) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for
the tax increment financing assistance provided by the Authority hereunder.
(h) The Redeveloper shall promptly advise the Authority in writing of all litigation or
claims affecting any part of the Minimum Improvements and all written complaints and charges
made by any governmental authority materially affecting the Minimum Improvements or materially
affecting Redeveloper or its business which may delay or require changes in construction of the
Minimum Improvements, until the Certificate of Completion is issued.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 17
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 8
ARTICLE III
Land Acquisition and Conveyance
Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property. In order to secure timely access to the
Redevelopment Property and in reliance on execution of this Agreement pursuant to the terms of the
LOI, the Redeveloper acquired fee title to the Redevelopment Property prior to the date of this
Agreement. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority has no obligation to acquire any of
the Redevelopment Property.
Section 3.2. Environmental Undertakings. (a) The parties acknowledge that MPCA has
approved a voluntary response action plan providing for remediation of hazardous wastes and
contaminants on the Redevelopment Property (the “VRAP”). Redeveloper shall promptly undertake
remediation and any other actions required under the VRAP, subject to the reimbursement as further
described in this Agreement.
(b) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or
warranties as to soil and environmental condition on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of
the Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose
for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the
Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the Authority for any
contamination of the Redevelopment Property or poor soil conditions nor imposes any obligation on
the Authority to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property and/or correction of any
soil problems (other than the financing described in this agreement).
(c) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the
Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City,
and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out
of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment
Property unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of
the actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or
affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including
without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02.
Section 3.3. Grant Disbursement. (a) To finance a portion of the environmental
remediation costs on the Redevelopment Property described in Schedule C (the “Grant-Eligible
Costs”), the Authority has obtained a grant from DEED in the amount of $118,000, a grant from the
County in the amount of $103,000, and a grant from the Met Council in the amount of $100,000.
(b) The Authority will pay or reimburse the Redeveloper for Grant-Eligible Costs from
and to the extent of the grant proceeds from DEED, the Met Council, and the County in accordance
with the terms of the DEED Grant Agreement, the Met Council Grant Agreement, and the County
Grant Agreement, respectively, and the terms of this Section. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, if Grant-Eligible Costs exceed the amount to be reimbursed under this Section, such
excess shall be the sole responsibility of the Redeveloper.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 18
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 9
(c) All disbursements will be made subject to the conditions precedent that on the date
of such disbursement:
(1) The Authority has received a written statement from the Redeveloper’s
authorized representative certifying with respect to each payment: (a) that none of the items
for which the payment is proposed to be made has formed the basis for any payment
previously made under this Section (or before the date of this Agreement); (b) that each item
for which the payment is proposed is a Grant-Eligible Cost, including a statement specifying
which grant is the eligible funding source; and (c) the Redeveloper reasonably anticipates
completion of the Grant-Eligible Costs and the Minimum Improvements in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement.
(2) No Event of Default under this Agreement or event which would constitute
such an Event of Default but for the requirement that notice be given or that a period of
grace or time elapse, shall have occurred and be continuing.
(3) No license or permit necessary for undertaking the Grant-Eligible Costs or
constructing the Minimum Improvements shall have been revoked or the issuance thereof
subjected to challenge before any court or other governmental authority having or asserting
jurisdiction thereover.
(4) Redeveloper has submitted, and the Authority has approved, Construction
Plans for the Minimum Improvements in accordance with Article IV hereof.
(d) Whenever the Redeveloper desires a disbursement to be made hereunder, which
shall be no more often than bi-weekly, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority a draw request
in the form attached as Schedule D duly executed on behalf of the Redeveloper accompanied by
paid invoices or other comparable evidence that the cost has been incurred and paid or is payable by
Redeveloper. Each draw request shall constitute a representation and warranty by the Redeveloper
that all representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement are true and correct as of the date
of such draw request.
(e) If the Redeveloper has performed all of its agreements and complied with all
requirements theretofore to be performed or complied with hereunder, including satisfaction of all
applicable conditions precedent contained in Article III hereof, the Authority shall make a
disbursement to the Redeveloper in the amount of the requested disbursement or such lesser amount
as shall be approved, within twenty Business Days after the date of the Authority’s receipt of the
draw request, or, if later, upon receipt of grant proceeds from DEED, the County, or the Met
Council, as the case may be. Each disbursement shall be paid from the grant designated by the
Authority at its discretion, subject to the Authority’s determination that the relevant Grant-Eligible
Cost is payable from the designated source under the DEED Grant Agreement, the County Grant
Agreement and the Met Council Grant Agreement.
(f) The making of the final disbursement by the Authority under this Section shall be
subject to the condition precedent that the Redeveloper shall be in compliance with all conditions
set forth in this Section and further, that the Authority shall have received a lien waiver from each
contractor for all work done and for all materials furnished by it for the Grant-Eligible Costs.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 19
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 10
(g) The Authority may, in its sole discretion, without notice to or consent from any other
party, waive any or all conditions for disbursement set forth in this Article. However, the making of
any disbursement prior to fulfillment of any condition therefor shall not be construed as a waiver of
such condition, and the Authority shall have the right to require fulfillment of any and all such
conditions prior to authorizing any subsequent disbursement.
Section 3.4. Issuance of Note. (a) Terms. In order to make construction of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, the Authority will reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the
costs of acquisition of the Redevelopment Property incurred by the Redeveloper (the “Public
Redevelopment Costs”), through issuance of the Note in accordance with this Section. The
Authority shall issue and the Redeveloper shall purchase the Note in the maximum principal
amount of $400,000. The Note will be issued as reimbursement of Public Redevelopment Costs,
and secured solely from the following sources in the following order of priority: (i) Available Tax
Increment; and (ii) to the extent Available Tax Increment is not sufficient to pay principal of and
interest on the Note on any Payment Date, City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment, as
defined hereinafter. The terms of the Note, including maturity and payment dates, will be
substantially those set forth in the form of the Note shown in Schedule E. The Note will bear
interest at 5.74% per annum. The Note will be dated as of the date of delivery, and interest will
accrue from such date.
(b) City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment. In order to more fully utilize tax
revenues resulting from the TIF District to reimburse Public Redevelopment Costs, the City pledges
that portion of Tax Increment from the TIF District that has been turned back to the County as
excess increment and is distributed by the County to the City as general tax revenues (the “City
Revenues Derived from Excess Increment”) as additional security for the Note. The City will
appropriate such funds to the Bond Fund as described in the Authorizing Resolution. Any City
Revenues Derived from Excess Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the
City’s general fund upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms.
(b) Issuance. Before issuance and delivery of the Note, Redeveloper must submit to the
Authority (i) a copy of the closing statement and certificate of real estate value in connection with
the Redeveloper’s acquisition of the Redevelopment Property; and (ii) Construction Plans. The
Authority will deliver the Note upon receipt and approval of the closing statement and certificate of
real estate value evidencing Public Redevelopment Costs in at least the principal amount of the Note
and the Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.2 hereof;
provided that in no event will the Authority deliver the Note prior to execution and recording of the
Assessment Agreement under Section 6.3 hereof.
(c) Termination of right to Note. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, if the conditions for delivery of the Note are not met by the date required for
commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements under Section 4.3, the Authority
may terminate the Redeveloper’s right to receive the Note by ten days written notice to the
Redeveloper. Thereafter neither party shall have any obligations or liability to the other hereunder
with respect to the Note.
(d) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the
Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Tax
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 20
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 11
Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest
on the Note. Any estimates of Tax Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors
in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are
not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may rely. Public Redevelopment
Costs exceeding the principal amount of the Note are the sole responsibility of Redeveloper.
Section 3.5. Lookback. (a) Generally. The financial assistance to the Redeveloper under
this Agreement is based on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses associated
with constructing the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property. The Authority
and the Redeveloper agree that those assumptions will be reviewed at the times described in this
Section, and that the amount of the tax increment assistance provided under Section 3.4 will be
adjusted accordingly.
(b) Repayment of Assistance. (i) Within 60 days of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion and the Redeveloper achieving 95% leasing of the net commercial office space on the
Redevelopment Property; or (ii) within 60 days after any Transfer of the Redevelopment Property
(excluding any Transfer to an Affiliate) which is approved by the Authority as required by
Article VIII and which occurs within five years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the Minimum Improvements ((i) and (ii) are each a “Triggering Event”),
whichever Triggering Event occurs first,, the Redeveloper must deliver to the Authority evidence
of its annualized cumulative internal rate of return from the Redevelopment Property and
Minimum Improvements (the “IRR”), calculated as of the respective applicable Triggering
Event. The IRR shall be calculated with equity, revenues and expenses all determined in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, provided that the amount of
Redeveloper’s equity must exclude the principal amount of the Note disbursed to the date of the
Triggering Event. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the Authority’s consultant any
background documentation related to the financial data, upon request. The Authority may
request a written certificate of a certified public accountant regarding total redevelopment costs
and revenues, to be provided at Redeveloper’s expense.
(c) The amount by which the IRR exceeds twelve percent (12%) is a percentage
referred to as “Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s equity
(as calculated for purposes of determining the IRR), is the “Participation Amount”. The
Redeveloper must pay 50 percent (50%) of the Participation Amount to the Authority upon the
occurrence of the Triggering Event (the Redeveloper Repayment”). The Redeveloper
Repayment shall be deducted from any remaining payments then due on the Note, but the
Redeveloper shall be responsible for the full amount of the Redeveloper Repayment. An
example of the calculation of the Redeveloper Repayment is shown at Schedule F.
Section 3.6. Payment of Administrative Costs. Upon execution of this Agreement, the
Redeveloper will pay the Authority $2,000 as a TIF Application Fee. In addition, until the Maturity
Date, the Redeveloper is responsible to pay all reasonable out of pocket costs for legal and financial
advising services incurred by the Authority that are attributable to or incurred in connection with the
negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other documents and agreements in connection
with the development contemplated hereunder (collectively, “Administrative Costs”).
Administrative Costs shall be evidenced by invoices, statements or other reasonable written
evidence of the costs incurred by the Authority, copies of which will be provided to the Redeveloper
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 21
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 12
upon request. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, Redeveloper
remains obligated to pay Administrative Costs incurred as of the effective date of termination.
Section 3.7. Business Subsidy Provisions. (a) The Redeveloper warrants and represents
that the Redeveloper’s investment in the purchase of the Redevelopment Property together with
Redeveloper’s investment in site preparation on such property (net of any portion of such costs
reimbursed through issuance of the Note) will equal at least 70% of the County assessor’s
estimated market value of the Redevelopment Property for the 2008 assessment year, calculated
as follows:
Aggregate Purchase price of Redevelopment Property $630,000
Date of purchase of each Parcel: February 15, 2008
Equals land cost $630,000
Less land acquisition costs reimbursed by the Note $400,000
Equals net land cost $230,000
2008 Assessor's estimated market value
of Redevelopment Property
$255,000
$230,000 (net acquisition cost) is 90% of $255,000 (assessor's current estimated fair
market value of the Redevelopment Property).
Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance through issuance of
the Note described in this Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning
of the Business Subsidy Act by operation of Section 116J.993, Subdivision 3, clause (17). The
Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the City and its governing body members,
officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the Business Subsidy
Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the City failed to comply with
the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement.
(b) The parties further agree and understand that the assistance provided to
Redeveloper in this Agreement through the grant proceeds does not constitute a business subsidy
under the Business Subsidy Act, because the grants represent assistance that is exempt from the
Business Subsidy Act under Sections 116J.993, Subdivision 3, clauses (4) and (8).
(c) Redeveloper acknowledges that under Section 116J.993, subdivision 7(c) of the
Business Subsidy Act, the Redeveloper is nevertheless required to file annual reports containing the
information described in Section 4.6 hereof. The Redeveloper must submit such reports at the times
required under Section 4.6. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any required report, the Authority
will mail the Redeveloper a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days
of the postmarked date of the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper
must pay to the Authority a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The
maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section $1,000.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 22
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 13
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Minimum Improvements,
Section 4.1. Construction of Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that if it
completes the acquisition of the Redevelopment Property, the Redeveloper will construct or cause
to be constructed the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with
the approved Construction Plans and will, subject to and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, at
all times prior to the Maturity Date operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum
Improvements or cause such improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept with the
appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition, except as otherwise
provided herein. The Authority shall have no obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum
Improvements.
Section 4.2. Site Plan and Construction Plans. (a) Construction Plans. Before
commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the
Authority Construction Plans. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the
relevant improvements and shall be in material conformity with the Redevelopment Plan, this
Agreement, and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority Representative
will approve the Construction Plans in writing if: (i) the Construction Plans materially conform to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans materially conform to the
goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all
applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the Construction
Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and (v) no Event of
Default has occurred. Approval may be based upon a review by the Authority’s Building Official
of the Construction Plans and shall be conclusive evidence that Redeveloper has satisfied its
obligations under this Section. No approval by the Authority Representative shall relieve the
Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement or of the Redevelopment
Plan, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the
Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority Representative
shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested
by the Redeveloper in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed
approved unless rejected in writing by the Authority Representative, in whole or in part. Such
rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefore, and shall be made within 30 days after the
date of their receipt by the Authority. If the Authority Representative rejects any Construction Plans
in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new or corrected Construction Plans within 30
days after written notification to the Redeveloper of the rejection. The provisions of this Section
relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to
apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority. The Authority
Representative’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. Said
approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Minimum
Improvements constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority’s satisfaction
with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto.
(b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans
after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 23
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 14
Authority for its approval. If the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change,
conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement and do not materially reduce
the market value of the Minimum Improvements, the Authority shall approve the proposed
change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction
Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in
part, by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting forth in detail the reasons
therefor. Such rejection shall be made within 30 days after receipt of the notice of such change.
The Authority’s approval of the Construction Plans and any such change in the Construction
Plans will not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. (a) Minimum
Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of
the Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2008, and shall complete construction of the Minimum
Improvements, with the specified minimum market values as set forth in the related Assessment
Agreement, by December 31, 2008.
(b) General Requirements. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to
be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in
conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the
Authority. The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in
interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such
successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently proceed to completion the
development of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum
Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event, subject to Unavoidable
Delays, be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this
Agreement. After the date of this Agreement and until construction of the Minimum
Improvements has been completed, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at
such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, as to the actual progress of the
Redeveloper with respect to such construction.
Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum
Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the
obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for
beginning and completion thereof), the Authority Representative will furnish the Redeveloper with
a Certificate shown as Schedule G. Such certification and such determination shall not constitute
evidence of compliance with or satisfaction of any obligation of the Redeveloper to any Holder of a
Mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finance the Minimum
Improvements or any part thereof.
(b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative
shall, within fifteen (15) business days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the
Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper
has failed to commence or complete the Minimum Improvements, as the case may be, in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or
acts will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in
order to obtain such certification.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 24
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 15
Section 4.5. Billboards. The Redeveloper will cause the removal of the two existing
billboards from the Redevelopment Property by giving the required 30 day notice of termination
of lease to the billboard owner and removing the billboards promptly upon the expiration of the
notice period, but under no circumstances will the billboards remain on the Redevelopment
Property after July 1, 2008.
Section 4.6. Records. The Authority, the County, the Met Council, DEED, the
Legislative Auditor and the State Auditor’s office, through any authorized representatives, shall
have the right after reasonable notice to inspect, examine and copy all books and records of
Redeveloper relating to the Grant-Eligible Costs, Public Redevelopment Costs and the Minimum
Improvements. Redeveloper shall also use best efforts to cause the contractor or contractors, all
sub-contractors and their agents and lenders to make their books and records relating to such costs
to the Authority, upon reasonable notice, for inspection, examination and audit. Redeveloper shall
maintain such records and provide such rights of inspection for a period of six years after issuance
of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements.
Section 4.7. Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report by
no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2009 and continuing until four years after
the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements. The report
must comply with the DEED Grant Agreement, the Met Council Grant Agreement and the County
Grant Agreement, and must contain at least the following items as of each reporting date:
(1) a statement describing all assistance provided to date under this Agreement,
including the type and public purpose, and a statement that the Note is payable with Tax
Increment from a redevelopment district.
(2) progress toward completion of the Grant-Eligible Costs, the Public
Redevelopment Costs and the Minimum Improvements during the previous calendar year;
(3) evidence of the net tax capacity of the Redevelopment Property and
improvements thereon for the current tax-payable year;
(4) the number of part-time and full-time jobs created on the Redevelopment
Property as of the end of the previous calendar year, and the hourly wage of each job
created;
(5) the percentage of new jobs, and the sum of hourly wages and cost of health
insurance provided by the employer, in the following hourly rate categories:
Less than $8.49
Between $8.50 and $10.49
Between $10.50 and $12.50;
More than $12.50
(6) a statement regarding Redeveloper’s location prior to the date of this
Agreement; and
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 25
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 16
(7) any other information requested by DEED, the Met Council or the County.
The Authority will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms.
Section 4.8. Acknowledgements. During work on the Minimum Improvements,
Redeveloper must post a sign on the site containing the following or similar language:
This project was financed in part through the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority, with grant funds provided by the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities
Fund, and by grants from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development and Hennepin County.
Section 4.9. Contract Requirements. (a) Redeveloper shall undertake all work related to
the Grant-Eligible Costs and the Minimum Improvements in compliance with the DEED Grant
Agreement, the Met Council Grant Agreement, and the County Grant Agreement and all applicable
federal and state laws, including without limitation all applicable state and federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act regulations, especially the federal Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response standards under 29 C.F.R. sections 1910.120 and 1926.65. Any
subcontractors retained by Redeveloper shall be subject to the requirements of this Section, which
shall be included in any subcontracts between the Redeveloper and subcontractor.
(b) In accordance with and to the extent required by Minn. Stat., Section 116J.871, the
Redeveloper shall, before commencing work on any Grant-Eligible Costs, certify to the Authority
and the Minnesota Commissioner of Labor and Industry that all applicable laborers and mechanics
engaged to undertake the Grant-Eligible Costs on the Redevelopment Property are paid the
prevailing wage rate. The term “prevailing wage rate” means the hourly basic rate of pay plus the
contribution for health and welfare benefits, vacation benefits, pension benefits, and any other
economic benefit paid to the largest number of workers engaged in the same class of labor within
the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, and may not be less than a reasonable and living wage.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 26
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 17
ARTICLE V
Insurance
Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper or its contractor will provide and maintain at
all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form
Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority,
furnish the Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following:
(i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk --
Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
insurable value of the Minimum Improvements at the date of completion, and with
coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy. The
interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and
content satisfactory to the Authority;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability
insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy or equivalent, with limits
against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence
(to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used);
and
(iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense,
and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums
on, insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under
a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar
businesses.
(ii) Commercial general public liability insurance, including personal injury
liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or
property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000.
(iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance respecting
all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by like
organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided
that the Redeveloper or its tenant may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its
liability for workers’ compensation.
(c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and
maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper or its tenant which are
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 27
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 18
authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the
Redeveloper will deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a
certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force
and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain
a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage
provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and
the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In
lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper or its tenant may maintain a single policy, blanket or
umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the
Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as
to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements.
(d) Subsequent to issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the Redeveloper shall
immediately notify the Authority in the case of damage exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or
destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other
casualty.
i. In such event the Redeveloper shall forthwith repair, reconstruct and restore
the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it
existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such
repair, reconstruction and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the Net Proceeds of any insurance
relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or reimbursement of the costs
thereof.
ii. The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of
the Minimum Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of insurance received by the
Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any Net Proceeds remaining after
completion of such repairs, construction and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper.
iii. Upon the failure of the Redeveloper to timely complete the reconstruction of
the Minimum Improvements subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the
Authority may elect, in addition to any other remedy under this Agreement, to suspend any payment
under the Note until the reconstruction is commenced and completed to the satisfaction of the
Authority.
(e) The Redeveloper, the Authority, and the City agree that all of the insurance
provisions set forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the Maturity Date.
Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Article V, the rights of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any proceeds of
insurance shall, in all respects, be subject and subordinate to the rights of any lender under a
Mortgage approved pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 28
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 19
ARTICLE VI
Taxes; Assessment Agreements
Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the
Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the redevelopment described
in this agreement through issuance of the Note. To that end, until the Maturity Date, the
Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to
statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before
delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum
Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on
behalf of the Authority to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent
real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the
county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses
and reasonable attorney fees. The parties agree and understand that upon a permitted Transfer
under Section 8.3, any transferee assumes the obligation under this Section as to the property
transferred, and the original Redeveloper is released.
Section 6.2. Reduction of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to completion of the
Minimum Improvements, it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of
the Redevelopment Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Minimum Improvements or any
part thereof; (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property, except to the extent
otherwise provided in Section 5.1(e); (C) subject to Section 6.3, apply for a deferral or abatement of
property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law; or (D) convey or transfer or allow
conveyance or transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity whose ownership or operation
of the property would result in the Redevelopment Property being exempt from real estate taxes
under State law.
Section 6.3. Assessment Agreements. (a) Before issuance of the Note under Section 3.4
hereof, the Redeveloper shall, with the Authority, execute an Assessment Agreement pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8, specifying an assessor’s minimum market value for
the Minimum Improvements together with the Parcel on which they are constructed. The amount of
minimum market value will be $900,000 as of January 2, 2009. The Assessment Agreement will
terminate upon the Maturity Date.
(b) The Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Schedule H. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to
assign a market value to the property in excess of such assessor’s minimum market value nor
prohibit the Redeveloper from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a
reduction in such market value for property tax purposes, provided however, that the Redeveloper
shall not seek a reduction of such market value below the assessor’s minimum market value in any
applicable year so long as such Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 29
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 20
ARTICLE VII
Financing
Section 7.1. Redeveloper Financing. (a) Before commencement of construction of the
Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority evidence of one or more
commitments for financing which, together with committed equity, is sufficient for the acquisition
of the Redevelopment Property and construction of the Minimum Improvements. Such
commitments may be submitted as short term financing, long term mortgage financing, a bridge
loan with a long term takeout financing commitment, or any combination of the foregoing.
(b) If the Authority finds that the financing is sufficiently committed and adequate in
amount to provide for the undertakings described in paragraph (a), then the Authority shall notify
the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld
and either approval or rejection shall be given within ten (10) days from the date when the
Authority is provided the evidence of financing. A failure by the Authority to respond to such
evidence of financing shall be deemed to constitute an approval hereunder. If the Authority
rejects the evidence of financing as inadequate, it shall do so in writing specifying the basis for
the rejection. In any event the Redeveloper shall submit adequate evidence of financing within
ten (10) days after such rejection.
(c) In the event that there occurs a default under any Mortgage, the Redeveloper shall
promptly provide to the Authority copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper
from the holder of such Mortgage. Redeveloper will include in any Mortgage documents a
provision giving the Authority the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf
of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the Redeveloper under the
Mortgage documents. In the event there is an event of default under this Agreement, the
Authority will transmit to the Holder of any Mortgage a copy of any notice of default given by
the Authority pursuant to Article IX of this Agreement.
Section 7.2. Subordination. In order to facilitate the Redeveloper obtaining financing for
the development of the Minimum Improvements, the Authority agrees to subordinate its rights
under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage, provided that (i) such subordination shall be
subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Authority and Holder of a Mortgage mutually
agree in writing; (ii) any subordination agreement must include the provision described in Section
7.1(c), and (iii) the Authority will not subordinate the Authority’s rights under any Assessment
Agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 30
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 21
ARTICLE VIII
Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification
Section 8.1. Representation as to Redevelopment. The Redeveloper represents and agrees
that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property or portions thereof, and its other undertakings
pursuant to the Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property and not for speculation in land holding.
Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of
Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that until issuance of the Certificate of
Completion for the Minimum Improvements:
(a) Except as specifically described in this Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or
created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale,
assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or
with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property, or any contract or agreement to do
any of the same, to any person or entity (collectively, a “Transfer”), without the prior written
approval of the Authority. The term “Transfer” does not include (i) encumbrances made or granted
by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining construction, interim or permanent
financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment
Property or to construct the Minimum Improvements, (ii) any lease, license, easement or similar
arrangement entered into in the ordinary course of business related to operation of the Minimum
Improvements, (iii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate, or (iv) any change
in ownership of the Redeveloper so long as the identity of the parties in control of Redeveloper do
not change. Any such transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this Section.
(b) If the Redeveloper seeks to effect a Transfer, the Authority shall be entitled to
require as conditions to such Transfer that:
(1) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial
responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to fulfill
the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion of the
Redevelopment Property to be transferred; and
(2) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of
the Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under
this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and
agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is
subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any
other successor in interest whatsoever to, the Redevelopment Property, or any part
thereof, has not, for whatever reason, assumed such obligations or so agreed, shall not
(unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed
to in writing by the Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 31
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 22
with respect to the Redevelopment Property, the Minimum Improvements, or any part
thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the
parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in
equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise
in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the
Redevelopment Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however
consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally,
or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or
remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the
Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had, had there been no such
transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the
contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve
the Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise
with respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with respect
thereto.
(3) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting
the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by
this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority.
(c) If the conditions described in paragraph (b) are satisfied, then the Transfer will be
approved and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement, as to
the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed,
unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The Authority will review and respond to a request
for Transfer within 30 days after receipt of a written request. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from its obligations under this
Agreement (or any portion thereof) shall be approved by the Authority’s Board of
Commissioners. If the Redeveloper remains fully bound under this Agreement notwithstanding
the Transfer, as documented in the transfer instrument, the Transfer may be approved by the
Authority Representative. The provisions of this paragraph (c) apply to all subsequent
transferors.
(d) Subsequent to completion of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the
Maturity Date, the Redeveloper shall be entitled to transfer its interest in the Redevelopment
Property, or any portion thereof, if the Redeveloper notifies the Authority of the transfer, the
transferee assumes the Redeveloper’s obligations under this Agreement accruing subsequent to
transfer, and the Authority is furnished with copies of the documents effecting the transfer.
Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful or wanton
misconduct or negligence of the following named parties, the Redeveloper releases from and
covenants and agrees that the Authority and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants
and employees thereof shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Authority and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof
against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about
or resulting from any defect in the Minimum Improvements.
(b) Except for any misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or
negligence of the following named parties, the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 32
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 23
Authority and City and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees
thereof, now or forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand,
suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever arising or allegedly arising from this Agreement, or the
transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and
operation of the Minimum Improvements.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Authority and City and
the governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof shall not be liable for
any damage or injury to the property of the Redeveloper or its officers, agents, servants or
employees or any other person who may be about the Redevelopment Property or Minimum
Improvements due to any act of negligence of any person.
(d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the
Authority and City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises,
agreements and obligations of the Authority and City and not of any governing body member,
officer, agent, servant or employee of the Authority or City in the individual capacity thereof.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 33
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 24
ARTICLE IX
Events of Default
Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under
this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement
(unless the context otherwise provides):
(a) Failure by the Redeveloper, the Authority or the City to observe or perform any
covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this
Agreement.
(b) If, before issuance of the Certificate of Completion for all the Minimum
Improvements, the Redeveloper shall
(i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement,
composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States
Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law; or
(ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or
(iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or
(iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent.
Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section
9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may exercise its rights under this Section 9.2
only after providing thirty days written notice to the defaulting party of the Event of Default, but
only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty days or, if the Event of Default is
by its nature not reasonably curable within thirty days, the defaulting party does not provide
assurances reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of Default will be cured
and will be cured as soon as reasonably practicable:
(a) Suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives assurances that the
defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement.
(b) Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper, the Authority may withhold
payments under the Note in accordance with its terms, which withheld amount is payable, without
interest thereon, on the first payment date after the default is cured.
(c) Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper, cancel and rescind or terminate the
Agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 34
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 25
(d) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable or administrative action, which may
appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement.
Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
Authority, City or Redeveloper is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or
remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by
statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall
impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right
and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In
order to entitle the Authority or City to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be
necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX.
Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by the other
parties, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed
to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 35
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 26
ARTICLE X
Additional Provisions
Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Authority and City Representatives Not Individually
Liable. The Authority, the City and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge,
represent and agree that no member, official, or employee of the Authority or City shall have any
personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or
employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests
or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly,
interested. No member, official, or employee of the Authority or City shall be personally liable to
the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority
or City or for any amount which may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any
obligations under the terms of the Agreement.
Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its
successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided
for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local equal employment
and non-discrimination laws and regulations.
Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that subject to the other
provisions herein until the Maturity Date, the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall
devote the Redevelopment Property to the operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in
Section 4.1 hereof, provided that in no event will any portion of the Redevelopment Property be
used for a sexually-oriented business as defined in City Code, Section 14:5-3(28), a pawnshop, a
check-cashing business, a tattoo business; or a gun business. Redeveloper shall not discriminate
upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or
occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or
any part thereof.
Section 10.4. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and
Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in
construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section 10.5. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the
other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and
(a) in the case of the Redeveloper, is addressed to or delivered personally to the
Redeveloper, 90 S. 7th Street, Suite 4500, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and
(b) in the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Authority
at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, Attn: Executive Director; and
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 36
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 27
(c) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, Attn: City Manager, or at such other
address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing
and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
Section 10.6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 10.7. Recording. The Authority or City may record this Agreement and any
amendments thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for
recording.
Section 10.8. Minnesota Law. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State, and any claim arising from this Agreement will be adjudicated in the State.
Section 10.9. Disclaimer of Relationships. The Redeveloper acknowledges that nothing
contained in this Agreement nor any act by the Authority, the City or the Redeveloper shall be
deemed or construed by the Redeveloper or by any third person to create any relationship of
third-party beneficiary, principal and agent, limited or general partner, or joint venture between the
Authority or City and the Redeveloper.
Section 10.10. Modifications. This Agreement may be modified solely through written
amendments hereto executed by the Redeveloper, the Authority, and the City.
Section 10.11. Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by the
Authority or City under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative or City
Representative.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 37
328776v4 MNI SA285-88
S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and City have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in their name and behalf and their seals to be hereunto duly affixed and the
Redeveloper has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf as of the date
first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 2008 by
__________________ and ______________________, the President and Executive Director,
respectively, of the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on behalf of
the Authority.
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 38
328776v4 MNI SA285-88
S-2
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2008
by ________________ and ___________________, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St.
Louis Park, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 39
LAKE STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _______, 2008 by
______________________, the ______________________ of Lake Street Office Center LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 40
SCHEDULE A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 554, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 1200989 (Tract A)
Torrens Certificate No. 1200990 (Tract B)
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 41
SCHEDULE B
SITE PLAN
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 42
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 43
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 44
328776v4 MNI SA285-88
C-1
SCHEDULE C
Grant Eligible Costs
Sources:
County Grant $103,000
DEED Grant 118,000
Met Council Grant 100,000
________
TOTAL SOURCES $321,000
Uses:
Remedial Investigation/RAP Development $51,000
Soils 212,000
MPCA Oversight/Implementation Report 23,000
Restricted Wastes, Cess Pools 30,000
Site Cap 5,000
_________
TOTAL USES $321,000
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 45
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 D-1
SCHEDULE D
DRAW REQUEST
TO: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
DISBURSEMENT DIRECTION
The undersigned Authorized Representative of Lake Street Office Center LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”), hereby authorizes and requests you to
disburse from proceeds of the DEED grant, the County Grant or the Met Council grant, as the
case may be, in accordance with the terms of the Contract for Private Redevelopment by and
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) and the
Redeveloper, dated as of __________, 2008 (the “Agreement”), the following amount to the
following person and for the following proper Grant-Eligible Costs:
1. Amount:
2. Payee:
3. Purpose:
4. Grant Source (DEED, County or Met Council):
all as defined and provided in the Agreement. The undersigned further certifies to the Authority
that (a) none of the items for which the payment is proposed to be made has formed the basis for
any payment previously made under Section 3.3 of the Agreement (or before the date of the
Agreement); (b) that each item for which the payment is proposed is a Grant-Eligible Cost, eligible
for funding from the grant source(s) identified above; and (c) the Redeveloper reasonably
anticipates completion of the Grant-Eligible Costs and the Minimum Improvements in accordance
with the terms of the Agreement.
Dated: ____________________
______________________________________
Redeveloper’s Authorized Representative
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 46
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-1
SCHEDULE E
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT WITH AND AWARDING THE SALE OF,
AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND
DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX
INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE TO LAKE STREET OFFICE
CENTER LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Background; Authorization; Award of Sale.
1.01. Background; Authorization. (a) The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park
(“City”) have heretofore approved the establishment of the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing
District. (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a
tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project.
(b) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and
sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public redevelopment costs of the TIF
District. The Authority duly issued and sold its $760,000 Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note
dated November 20, 1996 (the “Prior TIF Note”) for the purpose of financing a portion of the public
redevelopment costs within the TIF District. The Prior TIF Note represents a contract to reimburse
costs paid within five years after certification of the TIF District within the meaning of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 3(a), clause (4).
(c) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subd. (4), so long as bonds and
contracts that meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subd. 3 (“In-District
Obligations”) remain outstanding, the Authority is authorized to spend up to 25 percent of the
cumulative total tax increments from the TIF District (the “Outside District Percentage”) on
additional activities in the Project, all of which expenditures are deemed to be expended outside the
TIF District (“Outside District Expenditures”). The Authority may issue additional obligations to
finance Outside District Expenditures, secured by the Outside District Percentage of tax increments
from the TIF District and maturing no later than maturity, defeasance or redemption of the latest-
maturing In-District Obligations. The Prior TIF Note is an In-District Obligation maturing February
1, 2013.
(d) The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority
that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2008 (the “Note”) for the purpose of
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 47
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-2
financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project outside the geographic area of the TIF
District, pursuant to the terms of this Resolution.
1.02. Agreement Approved; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Authority
hereby approves the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority, the City, and
Lake Street Office Center LLC (the “Agreement”), and authorizes the President and Executive
Director to execute such Agreement in substantially the form on file with City, subject to
modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and are approved by such
officials, provided that execution of the Agreement by such officials is conclusive evidence of
their approval. All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the
Agreement unless the context requires otherwise.
(a) The Note shall be issued in the maximum principal amount of $400,000 to Lake Street
Office Center LLC (the "Owner"), in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner
under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest from the
date of issue to the earlier of maturity or prepayment, at the rate determined as provided in Section
3.4(a) of the Agreement. The Note is secured solely from the following sources in the following
order of priority: (i) by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Note herein;
and (ii) to the extent that Available Tax Increment is not sufficient to fully pay the principal of and
interest due on the Note on any Payment Date, City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment (as
defined in the form of Note), pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Authority hereby delegates to
the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in
accordance with the Agreement.
Section 2. Form of Note. The Notes shall be in substantially the following form, with
the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal amount adjusted as of the date of issue:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 48
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-3
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No. R-1 $___________
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
SERIES 200_ ___
Date
Rate of Original Issue
5.74%
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”) for value received,
certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to Lake Street Office Center LLC or
registered assigns (the "Owner"), the principal sum of $_______________ and to pay interest
thereon at the rate of 5.74% per annum, but solely from the sources and to the extent set forth
herein. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, capitalized terms in this Note have the
meaning provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and Owner
dated as of _________, 2008 (the “Agreement”).
1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on February 1, 2009
and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2013 (“Payment Dates”)
in the amounts set forth in Attachment A hereto (the “Payment Schedule”), payable solely from and
to the extent of the sources set forth in Section 3 hereof. Payments shall be applied first to accrued
interest, and then to unpaid principal.
Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the
Owner may designate upon 30 days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are
payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is
legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal,
commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360
days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid.
3. Available Tax Increment; City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment. (a)
Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the order of priority
and in the amount of (i) “Available Tax Increment,” which shall mean the lesser of: (A) 25 percent
of the total Tax Increment attributable to the TIF District that has been paid to the Authority by
Hennepin County in the six months prior to the subject Payment Date, and (B) the Tax Increment
attributable to the TIF District that has been paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six
months before the subject Payment Date and remains on hand after payment or provision for
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 49
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-4
payment on such Payment Date of the principal and interest then due on the Authority’s $760,000
Limited Revenue Tax Increment Note dated November 20, 1996 (“Prior TIF Note”); and (ii) to the
extent Available Tax Increment is insufficient to fully pay principal of and interest on this Note on
any Payment Date, “City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment,” which shall mean that portion
of Tax Increment derived from the TIF District and turned back by the Authority to the County as
excess tax increment distributed to the City by the County as general property tax revenues, and
pledged by the City to the bond fund for this Note pursuant to this Agreement. The pledge of
Available Tax Increment hereunder is subordinate to the pledge of Available Tax Increment to
the Prior TIF Note as and to the extent described in this paragraph.
(b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on
each Payment Date from any sources other than Available Tax Increment and City Revenues
Derived from Excess Increment, and the failure of the Authority to pay the entire scheduled
amount of principal or interest due on any Payment Date as set forth in the Payment Schedule
shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest
hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment and City Revenues Derived from Excess
Increment. If on any Payment Date there is available to the Authority insufficient Available Tax
Increment and City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment to pay the scheduled amount due
on such date, the amount of such deficiency shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon,
on the next Payment Date on which the Authority has available to it Available Tax Increment
and/or City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment in excess of the amount necessary to pay
the scheduled amount due on such subsequent Payment Date. The Authority shall have no
obligation to pay unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the earlier
of (i) final Payment on February 1, 2013 or (ii) the date of the defeasance, redemption or
maturity of the Prior TIF Note. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Authority’s
obligation to make Payments under this Note is qualified by the terms of Section 3.5 of the
Agreement.
4. Default. Upon an Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement, the
Authority may exercise the remedies with respect to this Note described in Section 9.2 of the
Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Optional Prepayment. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this
Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No
partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise
required to be made under this Note.
6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of
$_____________ issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs of a Project
undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and
is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on
__________, 2008, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the
State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179. This Note is a
limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment and City
Revenues Derived from Excess Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution.
This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State
of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 50
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-5
Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the
principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax
Increment or City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor
the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the
payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto.
7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note
without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein,
this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office
of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner's attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer
satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the
payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority
with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new
Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same dates.
This Note shall not be transferred to any person (except to the extent permitted under the
Resolution or the Agreement) unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or
a certificate of the transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt
from registration and prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities
laws.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required
by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be
performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority
according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due
form, time and manner as so required.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority has caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its
President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Executive Director President
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS
The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of
the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 51
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-6
Date of Signature of
Registration Registered Owner____ City Finance Director
Lake Street Office Center LLC
Federal Tax I.D. No. _____________
Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery.
3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note
numbered R-1.
The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the
Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable
by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month
preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day.
3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform
the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar
shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and
exchanges of the Note.
(b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the
registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly
authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the
name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount
and maturity, as requested by the transferor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Note shall not be
transferred to any person (other than an affiliate, or other related entity, of the Owner, or to a lender
as security for financing necessary to construct the Minimum Improvements as defined in the
Agreement) unless the Authority has been provided with an opinion of counsel or a certificate of the
transferor, in a form satisfactory to the Authority, that such transfer is exempt from registration and
prospectus delivery requirements of federal and applicable state securities laws. The Registrar may
close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each
Payment Date and until such Payment Date.
(c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled
by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority.
(d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for
transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 52
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-7
such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no
liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or
unauthorized.
(e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such
payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the
sum or sums so paid.
(f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar
may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee,
or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
(g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated
or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, maturity dates
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of
and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable
expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen,
or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost,
stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an
appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the
Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar
shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the
mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in
accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment.
3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the
Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its
President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall
cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid
and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.
When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner
thereof in accordance with the Agreement.
Section 4. Security Provisions.
4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest
on the Note all Available Tax Increment and City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment, as
defined in, and subject to the terms described in, the Note. Available Tax Increment and City
Revenues Derived from Excess Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and
interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this
resolution.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 53
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-8
4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof
or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the
Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose other than
the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to
appropriate to the Bond Fund in each year Available Tax Increment. In addition, the Authority
irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund all City Revenues Derived from Excess
Increment received from the City. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall
be transferred to the Authority's account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in
accordance with its terms, and any City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment remaining in the
Bond Fund shall be transferred to the City’s general fund upon the termination of the Note in
accordance with its terms.
4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no obligations secured by
Available Tax Increment or City Revenues Derived from Excess Increment unless such pledge is on
a subordinate basis to the pledge to the Note.
Section 5. Certification of Proceedings.
5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the
books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such
certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed
representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon full execution of the
Agreement.
Adopted this _____ day of __________, 2008.
President
ATTEST:
Secretary
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 54
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 E-9
Attachment A to Note
Payment Schedule
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 55
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 F-1
SCHEDULE F
REDEVELOPER REPAYMENT EXAMPLE
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 56
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 G-1
SCHEDULE G
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) and
Lake Street Office Center LLC (“Redeveloper”) entered into a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment dated __________, 2008 (“Contract”); and
WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Articles
III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is
able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this
certification;
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical
improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the
Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the
Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate is intended to be a
conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of
Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but any
other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
Authority Representative
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 57
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-1
SCHEDULE H
FORM OF ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
and
ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATION
By and Between
ST LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
and
LAKE STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC
This Document was drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 58
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-2
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
[Lake Street Office Center]
THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ____ day of _________________, 20____ by
and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body, corporate and
politic (the “Authority”) and Lake Street Office Center LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(the “Redeveloper”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and the Redeveloper have entered
into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated ______, 2008 (the “Contract”), pursuant to which
the Authority is to facilitate development of certain property in the City of St. Louis Park (the
“City”) hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Contract the Redeveloper is obligated to construct certain
improvements upon the Property referred to as the Lake Street Office Center.
WHEREAS, it is intended that the Redeveloper will establish the Property as a commercial
office building by constructing the Minimum Improvements as described in the Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper desire to establish a minimum market value for
the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and
WHEREAS, the Redeveloper represents that it has acquired and now owns fee title to all of
the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the
preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises,
covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows:
1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for
the Property described in Exhibit A shall be $900,000 as of January 2, 2009 notwithstanding the
progress of construction by such date.
2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and effect
and this Agreement shall terminate on the Maturity Date as defined in the Contract, or such earlier
date on which the Contract is terminated as provided therein. The event referred to in Section 2 of
this Agreement shall be evidenced by a certificate or affidavit executed by the Authority.
3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper
shall pay all costs of recording.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 59
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-3
4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall
they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Contract between the Authority and the
Redeveloper.
5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the parties.
6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all actions
required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this
Agreement.
7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable
any other provision hereof.
8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and
deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements, amendments and
modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any
inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or the Minimum Improvements or
for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any further
instruments required to delete from the description of the Property such part or parts as may be
included within a separate assessment agreement.
9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be
amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties
hereto.
10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 60
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this Assessment
Agreement to be executed in their names and on their behalf by their duly authorized
representatives all as of the date set forth above.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:____________________________________
Its President
By:____________________________________
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____, 2008, by
__________________________ and __________________________, the President and
Executive Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on
behalf of said Authority.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 61
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-5
LAKE STREET OFFICE CENTER LLC
By:____________________________________
Its: _________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________, 2008, by
_________________________, the ________________, of Lake Street Office Center LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said company.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 62
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-6
CERTIFICATION BY CITY ASSESSOR
The undersigned, having reviewed certain plans for the Minimum Improvements to be
constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the Minimum Improvements
are to be constructed, as described in this Assessment Agreement, hereby states as follows: The
undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described
property, hereby certifies that the $__________ minimum market value hereinabove in Section 1
assigned to the Redevelopment Property and Minimum Improvements is reasonable.
_______________________________________
City Assessor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________, 2008, by
_________________, the City Assessor of St. Louis Park.
_______________________________________
Notary Public
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 63
328776v4 MNI SA285-88 H-7
EXHIBIT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of Redevelopment Property
Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 554, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens Certificate No. 1200989 (Tract A)
Torrens Certificate No. 1200990 (Tract B)
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4e)
Subject: Redevelopment Contract with Lake Street Office Center Page 64
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Rec Center Programming Office
1. Call to Order
Chair Mr. Hallfin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Commission members present: George Foulkes, George Hagemann (7:30 p.m.), Steve
Hallfin, Kirk Hawkinson, Lauren Webb-Hazlett, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: Bruce Cornwall
Staff present: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent, Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, and
Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary.
2. Presentation: None.
3. Approval of Minutes
• January 16, 2008
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Worthington to approve the minutes from
the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion
passed 5-0.
4. New Business
a. Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Birno indicated the first step in the Comprehensive Plan was to organize parks into
categories (community, playfield, neighborhood, etc.). Park areas with joint property
ownership relationships have been identified in the plan. Staff has also created a section of
goals for the Parks and Recreation Department. Once the goals are finalized, the Plan will be
presented to the Commission to review (potentially in March). Mr. Worthington inquired if
the comprehensive plan includes plans or goals for natural park resources; Mr. Birno advised
it does. Mr. Beane indicated that environment items will be a big piece of the Plan and
advised the Planning Department is also assisting.
Mr. Hallfin inquired if the Comprehensive Plan requires cooperation of the school district or
if it’s inclusive of other city projects. Mr. Birno indicated collaborations and partnerships
would be welcomed.
b. CIP Project Updates
Fern Hill Park Reconstruction Neighborhood Meeting: Mr. Birno advised the Fern Hill
neighborhood was invited to a recent meeting. 1,400 post cards were sent and 21 individuals
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes February 20, 2008
attended. Mr. Birno and members reviewed the property ownership and proposed initial
improvements for Fern Hill Park. Mr. Birno advised the old building will be removed and a
shelter, similar to the main shelter at Oak Hill Park, will be constructed. The open air shelter
will include a concrete pad, picnic tables to seat up to 60 people, outlets, a unisex bathroom
and a utility room. Mr. Birno showed a potential layout of the park which includes athletic
fields (baseball and soccer), shelter, trail around perimeter, new access trail, playground area,
sledding hill, half-court basketball area and outdoor multi-use field lights.
Mr. Beane advised the city will partner with Torah Academy on parking lot improvements.
Mr. Foulkes inquired on the number of parking stalls available; staff is unsure of the exact
number at this point in the process. Mr. Birno advised Torah Academy supports the layout.
Mr. Birno indicated the feedback received from maintenance staff, residents, and the
Commission will be provided to SRF to revise the site plan. Mr. Hallfin inquired if
additional lights for the baseball field could be included; Mr. Birno will note and unsure
based on budget constraints.
Members inquired if the neighborhood meeting was positive; staff felt it went smooth with a
couple negative comments. Mr. Birno suggested the Commission review the revised plan in
March once the revisions are completed based on comments received and budget constraints
considered. The neighborhood will have the opportunity to review in early April. Once
approved, the goal is to begin construction in June.
Mr. Hallfin suggested fully lighting both fields would be beneficial. Mr. Beane advised new
lighting has improved dramatically with less spill-over. Mr. Hawkinson suggested fence on
south side. Mr. Hawkinson expressed his concern about foul balls going into the parking
area; Mr. Birno advised staff is aware of that and has instructed SRF consider the foul ball
issue in the design. Members feel the neighborhood would be excited with the reconstruction
as the park needs improvement.
Off-Leash Dog Park: Mr. Beane advised the potential site for a second off-leash dog park at
France Avenue is no longer an option. The third option was at Carlson Park. Staff held a
neighborhood meeting which produced approximately 20 people with two opposed to the
dog park at that location. Council directed staff to develop Carlson Park as an off-leash dog
park or list as excess land. Mr. Beane advised out of approximately 230 permits sold
annually, minimal issues have risen. Buckthorn will be removed and the fence will be
installed mid-June with an opening of late June or early July. There is potential parking on
Nevada at this time. The neighborhood asked staff not to create a parking area at this time
and staff will abide by their request. Staff and neighbors discussed all aspects and feel all
individuals are comfortable with the plan. Mr. Beane indicated the fence from Bass Lake
Preserve has been salvaged and will be reused in Carlson Park to create approximately 1.5
acres for the dog park (the dog park in Dakota is approximately .75 acres. Trees will not be
removed in Carlson Park for the dog park and the trail that currently travels through that
area will remain.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes February 20, 2008
Louisiana Oaks Park Picnic Shelter: Mr. Birno advised the first of two sun shelters to be
installed at Louisiana Oaks will be constructed this May. The 20 x 40 will be located north
of the playground. A new trail will also be added by the shelter. Staff will mail postcards to
neighbors advising of the project. Mr. Beane advised the proposed new trail will provide
access from handicap parking stalls and continue through the park. In winter, the trail will be
plowed and cross country ski trails maintained (weather dependent). Mr. Hallfin inquired on
the cost of the shelter; Mr. Birno advised a bid in the amount of $29,000 has been received.
Mr. Beane advised staff received five different proposals. Due to soil conditions, there is a
notification process with the EDA. Mr. Beane advised the project will begin May 19 and
take approximately three days to complete. Mr. Beane indicated the Lions Club adopted the
shelter years ago so staff will work with the Lions Club on the project.
Pennsylvania and Jackley Park Playground Structures: Mr. Birno advised the
Commission that staff will meet with neighbors on Thursday, February 21 to review and
vote on playground structures. There is a budget of approximately $32,000 for each park; all
proposals have been reviewed and meet specifications; all seven companies that submitted
bids are reputable companies. The majority vote from the neighborhood decides the
playground structure and color.
Mr. Hawkinson asked what the $32,000 includes; Mr. Birno advised it includes the
playground equipment, fabric, wear pads, base wood fiber, and installation. Mr. Beane
advised the old playground equipment is removed and disposed of in one day; staff preps
area then the new equipment is installed. The entire process is completed within a week. Mr.
Birno indicated the life span of playground equipment is approximately 13 years.
Aquatic Park - Season and Special Event Review: Mr. Birno reviewed the dates and times,
including new times in August, of the upcoming aquatic park season; indicated the senior
party will be the night prior to the opening of the aquatic park and they will utilize the pool
that night (June 5). The daily admission and season pass rates will remain the same. Mr.
Birno reviewed new and continual aquatic park programs. Members complimented staff on
offering events received from resident feedback.
Mr. Hagemann indicated an organization in Excelsior and Grand may be interested in
assisting with sponsoring a movie night. Mr. Foulkes inquired on the cost of lifeguards for
groups hosting fundraisers; Mr. Birno advised most staff with volunteers and groups pay a
flat rate of approximately $150-200 for life guards.
5. Old Business
a. Approve 2008 Goals
Members reviewed; Mr. Cornwall advised he supports goals.
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Foulkes to approve the 2008 goals of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion passed 6-0.
b. Minnehaha Creek Clean Up
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes February 20, 2008
Members advised to move item to the March meeting.
6. Communications
a. Chair
Mr. Hallfin thanked members for electing him Chair. Mr. Hallfin advised, on behalf of the
Little League, thanked staff, members and Council for the sign ordinance amendment.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if members are interested in fundraising at Cub by selling through
their hot dog stand as applications for use are due in March. Members discussed and advised
Mr. Hawkinson to research and provide more information at March meeting or via email if
application deadline is approaching.
Mr. Worthington advised Browndale Park has been well used this season; staff indicated the
importance of providing good facilities for residents to enjoy. Staff indicated many requests
have been received to keep the ice rink open due to an increased interest in outdoor activity
at Browndale. Mr. Beane advised rink flooding will continue due to prime weather but the
rinks will not be staffed, nor lighted.
Mr. Foulkes thanked Mr. Birno and Mr. Beane; and congratulated Mr. Hallfin and Mr.
Hawkinson on their new Commission roles.
c. Program Report
Mr. Birno advised staff is researching the concept to combine participants for in-house
basketball with other communities. Staff is reviewing participation numbers and discussing
opportunities with other cities.
d. Directors Report
None.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Worthington to adjourn. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4g
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MARCH 5, 2008--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard
Person, Carl Robertson, Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes from January 2, 2008 and January 16, 2008
Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the January 2, 2008 minutes.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-
1 (Shapiro abstained).
Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the January 16, 2008 minutes.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Shapiro
abstained).
3. Hearings - None
4. Other Business
A. Isabelle Estates – Preliminary Plat with Variances
(public hearing closed; tabled from Jan. 2)
Location: 8550 Minnetonka Boulevard
Applicant: Golden Valley Land Co. – Peter Knaeble, President
Case No.: 07-56-S
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report and noted plan
revisions, which included: (1) a 50 ft. rear yard setback in Lots 1 and 2 to protect the grove
of trees on the northwest corner of the property; (2) addition of a 10 foot side yard setback
to Lot 4 to protect the existing buildings (home and pool) to the east; (3) addition of a six
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008
foot concrete sidewalk along Minnetonka Boulevard; and, (4) addition of statements to the
plan regarding possible purchase of house, barn or garage, stating the applicant would be
willing to make the necessary applications to serve those structures. The barn would need
variances because of the size. The three-car garage would require revision to the drainage
easement along the back and side property lines. The house would require either a variance
to the side yard setback of 13 feet or the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 be adjusted to
accommodate the 13-foot setback or a combination of the two. Mr. Morrison further
discussed the variance requests as outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Person noted if the plat is approved the two structures attached to the existing
house on the west side appear to encroach across the lot line. Would those have to be
removed?
Mr. Morrison replied that was correct. Staff would require the structures to be removed in
their entirety before giving authorization for the plat to be recorded.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the difference in impervious surface between the cul-de-
sac plan and the other plan.
Mr. Morrison replied the two plans were close. The inclusion of a cul-de-sac generated
more impervious surface. However on the other plan, the driveways were a little longer.
Peter Knaeble, applicant, said he had been working with staff for three months. He said he
appreciated the Planning Commission study session and had incorporated the ideas
mentioned at the session.
Commissioner Morris asked if there was any conclusion regarding the issue of the historic
building on site.
Mr. Knaeble replied that he met with staff and the Historical Society. The Society felt the
house did not have any permanent historical significance. He also met with Councilmember
Sanger and a preservationist and had not heard back from them.
Commissioner Person asked if he understood correctly that there was no circumstance under
which the existing house would be retained in the subdivision.
Mr. Knaeble replied they were looking at both options and would keep the existing house if
they could find a buyer. There were a lot of issues due to the age of the house. That would
occur before the final plat.
Commissioner Morris stated he didn’t support the sidewalk variance and wouldn’t vote in favor
because of that issue. He said he would be willing to vote on separate motions.
Commissioner Robertson requested having three motions. He said he also was not
comfortable losing the sidewalk.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008
Commissioner Kramer said that he did not attend the study session. He stated that the
Commission wants to have sidewalks. People use sidewalks and kids play on them. It is a
very busy intersection and even if the sidewalk goes nowhere, people will use it. He said he
would propose eliminating sidewalk variances altogether.
Commissioner Robertson said he was not comfortable with the plan. When he looks at a
variance, he looks at the intent. There are variances for odd shaped lots or when something
integral with the lot causes a problem. He went on to say that if the proposed subdivision
wasn’t at the corner of Minnetonka and Aquila and there wasn’t strange geometry and the
frontage road was parallel with the north sides of the lots, the lots would all be quite a bit too
narrow. The developer was adding an extra lot because of the odd geometry. There is no
hardship due to geometry. He commented that visually the proposed plan feels like
overbuilding. Commissioner Robertson said it is a prominent lot on a prominent road and
he was not comfortable with it and didn’t support the variances or the plat.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the request for a sidewalk
variance.
Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion to deny the request for a sidewalk
variance passed on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the lot width variance,
subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer asked for the exact location of the requested variance.
Mr. Morrison discussed the lot width variances for each of the lots.
Commissioner Morris viewed this as a unique situation in that it had the required frontage.
But, because of the unique situation of the geography and the minor issue of the depth not
maintaining 75’, and because there was such a large rear yard area, he thought the variance was
justified as they were not creating small lots. The lots are large and there will be a lot of green
space. He said he thought the variance was sustainable because of the proposed depth of the
lots.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked to see the aerial photo again and asked the size of
the lots to the right.
Mr. Morrison showed the aerial photo and replied he believed the lots were 40 feet wide.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Robertson opposed).
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes March 5, 2008
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat,
subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
5-1 (Robertson opposed).
Chair Robertson noted the lots were narrow and requested that the houses on the lots be
built accordingly.
5. Communications
A. Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
March 19, 2008, 7 p.m.
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff proposed to hold a joint meeting with Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission on March 19th at 7 p.m. Staff has been working on the long range
parks plan related to the Comprehensive Plan and would like to present it to the two
Commissions.
Commissioner Morris suggested the Commission meet at 6 p.m. on March 19th for a staff
presentation on the Comprehensive Plan revision required by the Metropolitan Council by
the end of 2008.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4h
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period March 15, 2008 through March 31, 2008.
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
04/03/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:01:02R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
03/31/2008 -03/15/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22.37SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE1-800 RADIATOR
22.37
117.65HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
117.65
13,014.602005A GO CAPITAL PROJECT G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALL CITY ELEVATOR INC
13,014.60
73.01PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
53.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
47.49ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.19VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
37.34WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
37.34SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
295.62
692.99PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
692.99
76.29ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
76.29
8,348.52WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
8,348.52
65.79PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
65.79
1,285.08ENGINEERING G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBARR ENGINEERING CO
442.50STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,727.58
65.50ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
65.50
280.69GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS
280.69
53.93STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBROCK WHITE CO LLC
53.93
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
04/03/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:01:02R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
03/31/2008 -03/15/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,125.24INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBUILDING FASTENERS
1,125.24
90.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSBUSINESS WEEK
90.00
303.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCENTERPOINT ENERGY
303.90
90.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
90.00
355.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
215.28ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
7.70ADMINISTRATION G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
211.63WIRELESS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
789.61
7,690.00POLICEOTHERCORONA SOLUTIONS
7,690.00
4,159.74WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
4,159.74
3,730.77INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
3,730.77
4,250.00ROTTLUND VILLAGE - PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDESIGN SERVICE
4,250.00
1,074.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEDETERMAN BROWN INC
1,074.00
240.76GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSDIESEL COMPONENTS
240.76
20,701.35POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
20,701.35
266.25TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEEMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC
266.25
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
04/03/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:01:02R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
03/31/2008 -03/15/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
13.64HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEEVANS, ERIK
13.64
45.50HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEFLANNIGAN, JANE
45.50
628.21NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPING MATERIALSFOLLANSBEE STEEL
628.21
277.26VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESFORCE AMERICA INC
277.26
5.24GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFOWLER ELECTRIC COMPANY
5.24
87.81BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSGOODWAY TECHNOLOGIES CORP
87.81
281.65LOCATESOTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
281.65
593.21FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
3.25PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES
343.39GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
939.85
4,565.00WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
300.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,865.00
945.75DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHALF TECHNOLOGY INC, ROBERT
945.75
26,580.33CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHARDRIVES INC
36,199.88CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
63,788.57CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
126,568.78
700.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEALEY, MICHAEL
700.00
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
04/03/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:01:02R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
03/31/2008 -03/15/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,127.34POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS ACCTG
1,127.34
Report Totals 205,759.18
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
04/03/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:56:55R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
03/31/2008 -03/15/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
873.00NW DRUG TASKFORCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSMARSHALL, JEFF
37.00NW DRUG TASKFORCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
910.00
Report Totals 910.00
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing regarding the Modification of the Tax Increment Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax
Increment Financing District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close Public Hearing.
Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Modification of the TIF Plan for the Victoria
Ponds Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate the cleanup and redevelopment of the former
Erv’s Repair Garage property (a scattered redevelopment site) located at 7102 & 7104 Lake St?
BACKGROUND:
Real Estate Recycling (RER) plans to cleanup and redevelop the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair
Garage site located at 7102 and 7104 Lake Street West (the “subject property”). Upon the removal
of the existing building and billboards on the site, RER’s environmental response action plan calls
for excavation and treatment of the contaminated soils and then capping those soils on site with a
new building and parking lot. Once the contamination on the property has been properly addressed
and the site prepared for redevelopment, RER proposes to construct a 4,000 square foot office
building called the Lake Street Office Center.
Financial estimates for purchasing, cleaning up, and redeveloping the former Erv’s Garage site in
accordance with MPCA requirements make the proposed project cost prohibitive without financial
assistance from several public agencies including the city. At the November 13, 2007 Study Session
the EDA expressed interest in working with Real Estate Recycling to clean up and redevelop the
contaminated property. Thus on November 19th the EDA authorized the submission of
environmental clean up grant applications to DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin
County for a combined total of $321,000 to properly address the contamination on the property.
All three of these grants were subsequently approved. This then reduced the shortfall in the
Redeveloper’s project pro forma to $400,000.
At the January 14, 2008 Study Session it was suggested that the remaining financial assistance could
be derived from pooled tax increment from the existing Victoria Ponds TIF District as state statutes
allow 25% of tax increment generated within a redevelopment district to be spent on redevelopment
activities outside the district. It was noted that directing tax increment from the Victoria Ponds TIF
District toward the redevelopment of the Erv’s site would require a modification to the Victoria
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing – Modification of the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan
Ponds TIF District’s Plan budget. This funding source was favorably received and staff was directed
to begin the process of formally modifying the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan.
On February 4, 2008, the EDA approved a Letter of Intent between the EDA and Real Estate
Recycling. Amongst the EDA’s obligations within the Letter of Intent was a requirement that the
EDA promptly initiate the process to modify the tax increment financing plan for the existing
Victoria Ponds TIF District to allow the use of pooled tax increment to assist the redevelopment of
the former Erv’s Garage Property.
TIF District Approvals:
On February 19th, the City Council set a public hearing date of April 7, 2008 for the proposed
Modification to the TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds TIF District.
On March 19, 2008 the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding the Modification of
the TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds TIF District to be in conformance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Results of TIF Feasibility Analysis
The Victoria Ponds TIF District is a Redevelopment District. Therefore tax increment from the
Victoria Ponds TIF District may only be spent on development or redevelopment-related activities
within the boundaries of the district or Redevelopment Project No.1. Staff retained (at developer’s
expense) LHB, Inc. to conduct a state-required inspection of the former Erv’s Garage site to
determine if it met the criteria of a redevelopment TIF district. The inspection concluded that the
proposed redevelopment area met both the “Coverage Test” and the “Condition of Buildings Test”
and thus the use of tax increment to assist with the acquisition of the site qualified under Minnesota
Statutes as a legitimate redevelopment cost.
Synopsis of the proposed Modifications to the TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds TIF District
According to the proposed TIF Plan:
The District is being modified to provide budgetary authority to utilize increased tax
increments collected from the District and to modify the budget to reflect the actual project
activity to date and to bring it into compliance with the State Auditor budget requirements.
It should be noted that the modified budget is a not-to-exceed budget and not an expected budget of
costs.
The modified TIF Plan allows the City to spend or return excess increments and to finance public
costs within the area of the city designated Redevelopment Project No. 1 (which includes the former
Erv’s Garage Property).
The geographic boundaries of the existing Victoria Ponds TIF District are not changing as a result of
the proposed TIF Plan Modification. For accuracy purposes the list of Property Identification
Numbers within the modified TIF Plan has been updated to reflect the property subdivisions that
subsequently occurred as a result of the Victoria Ponds redevelopment.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing – Modification of the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan
In addition, the term of the Victoria Ponds TIF District is clarified as 25 years after receipt of the
first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City has the right to
decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District is being
modified to provide budgetary authority to utilize tax increments collected from the District to assist
with redevelopment activities outside the District (on the former Erv’s Garage property located at
7102 & 7104 Lake St.).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Cleaning up and redeveloping the former Erv’s Garage property is consistent with the Strategic
Directions of Vision St. Louis Park as it relates to environmental stewardship. The proposed project
is also consistent with the goals expressed in the Redevelopment section of the city’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Attachments: Resolution
Modification to the TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds TIF District
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing – Modification of the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 08-______
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND ADOPTING
A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR VICTORIA PONDS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "EDA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Project”) and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor and established the Victoria Ponds Tax
Increment Financing District (the "District ") and adopted the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor.
It has been proposed that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan Modification") for the Project and adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Plan Modification" or together with the Redevelopment Plan
Modification, the "Modifications") for the District, all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable
law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799,
inclusive as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Modifications, and presented for the Council's
consideration.
1.02. The Council has investigated the facts related to the Modifications and has caused the
Modifications to be prepared.
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
adoption and approval of the proposed Modifications, including, but not limited to, notification of
Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property
included in the District, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law.
1.04. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project.
Section 2. Findings for the Modifications
2.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the sound and orderly
development of the Project, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and
general welfare, that the authority of the Act be exercised by the City to provide public financial
assistance to the Project.
2.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the City, that the
development proposed in the Modifications could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through
private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment
financing is necessary.
2.03. The proposed public improvements to be financed in part through tax increment
financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the Project in terms of the
redevelopment of underdeveloped, environmentally contaminated property.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing – Modification of the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan
2.04. The Tax Increment Plan Modification conforms to the general plan of development of
the City as a whole.
2.05. The Tax Increment Plan Modification will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project by private enterprise.
2.06. This modification does not change the classification or boundaries of the District. The
District remains classified as a redevelopment district under Section 469.174, subd. 10(a)(2) of the Act
(as of the date of request for certification).
2.07. Reasons and facts supporting the above findings are set forth in Exhibit A hereto. The
Council has also relied upon the reports and recommendations of its staff and consultants as well as the
personal knowledge of members of the Council in reaching its conclusions regarding the Modifications.
Section 3. Public Purpose
3.01. The adoption of the Modifications conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the State which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and
thereby serves a public purpose.
Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Modifications; Filing.
4.01. The Modifications are hereby approved, and shall be placed on file in the office of the
City Clerk. Approval of the Modifications does not constitute approval of any project or a development
agreement with any developer.
4.02. The staff of the City are authorized to file the Modifications with the Commissioner of
Revenue, the Office of the State Auditor and the Hennepin County Auditor.
4.03. The staff of the City, the City’s advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Modifications and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare
and present to this Council for its consideration all further modifications, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2008.
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing – Modification of the Victoria Ponds TIF District Plan
EXHIBIT A
Statement of Facts Supporting Findings
The reason for the Tax Increment Plan Modification is solely to provide budgetary authority to utilize the
increased tax increments expected to be generated through the life of the District, and to modify the budget
to reflect actual project activity to date and expected project activity until decertification. The specific
development to be assisted is an office building on environmentally contaminated land within the Project.
The redeveloper has requested that the EDA reimburse land acquisition costs for the office building property.
The City has determined that the land acquisition costs have been properly incurred by the redeveloper. The
cost of acquisition, if assumed by the redeveloper in addition to the extraordinary costs of environmental
mitigation necessary to redevelop the property, would impair the redeveloper’s ability to lease or sell the office
building at a fair market value. Therefore, the City believes that, absent the tax increment assistance for the
land acquisition, redevelopment of this property would be unlikely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable
future.
As of March 31, 2008
Draft for Public Hearing
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the modification of
THE VICTORIA PONDS
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
within
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: March 18, 1996
Adopted: April 1, 1996
Modification Public Hearing: April 7, 2008
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I.
MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ........................................1-1
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT ................................................2-1
A. Forward .......................................................2-1
B. Statutory Authority ..............................................2-1
C. Statement of Objectives...........................................2-1
D. Redevelopment Plan Overview .....................................2-2
E. Legal Description of Property in the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing
District ........................................................2-2
F. Classification of the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District ......2-3
G. Property To Be Acquired..........................................2-4
H. Estimate of Project Costs..........................................2-5
I. Bonded Indebtedness .............................................2-7
J. Sources of Revenue ..............................................2-7
K. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate .................................2-8
L. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment..................2-9
M Duration of the Victoria Ponds District ...............................2-9
N. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions........................2-9
O. Modifications to the Victoria Ponds District ..........................2-11
P. Administrative Expenses .........................................2-12
Q. Limitation of Increment..........................................2-13
R. Use of Tax Increment............................................2-14
S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .........................2-15
T. Excess Tax Increments ..........................................2-15
U. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .....................2-16
V. Assessment Agreements .........................................2-16
W. Administration of the Victoria Ponds District .........................2-17
X. Financial Reporting Requirements .................................2-17
Y. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose.............................2-19
Z. State Tax Increment Financing Aid.................................2-19
AA Fiscal Disparities Election ........................................2-20
AB. County Road Costs .............................................2-21
AC. Economic Development and Job Creation ............................2-21
AD. Summary .....................................................2-21
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAP OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ........ A-1
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 8
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT ................................................B-1
APPENDIX C
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM............................C-1
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 9
1-1
07-117-21-41-0072 07-117-21-41-0097 08-117-21-32-0066 08-117-21-32-0093
07-117-21-41-0074 07-117-21-41-0098 08-117-21-32-0067 08-117-21-32-0094
07-117-21-41-0075 07-117-21-41-0099 08-117-21-32-0068 08-117-21-32-0095
07-117-21-41-0076 07-117-21-41-0100 08-117-21-32-0069 08-117-21-32-0096
07-117-21-41-0077 07-117-21-41-0101 08-117-21-32-0071 08-117-21-32-0097
07-117-21-41-0078 07-117-21-41-0102 08-117-21-32-0074 08-117-21-32-0098
07-117-21-41-0079 07-117-21-41-0103 08-117-21-32-0075 08-117-21-32-0099
07-117-21-41-0080 07-117-21-41-0104 08-117-21-32-0076 08-117-21-32-0100
07-117-21-41-0081 07-117-21-41-0105 08-117-21-32-0077 18-117-21-12-0048
07-117-21-41-0082 07-117-21-41-0106 08-117-21-32-0078 18-117-21-12-0049
07-117-21-41-0083 07-117-21-41-0107 08-117-21-32-0079 18-117-21-12-0050
07-117-21-41-0084 07-117-21-44-0103 08-117-21-32-0080 18-117-21-12-0051
07-117-21-41-0085 08-117-21-32-0054 08-117-21-32-0081 18-117-21-12-0052
07-117-21-41-0086 08-117-21-32-0055 08-117-21-32-0082 18-117-21-12-0053
07-117-21-41-0087 08-117-21-32-0056 08-117-21-32-0083 18-117-21-12-0054
07-117-21-41-0088 08-117-21-32-0057 08-117-21-32-0084 18-117-21-12-0055
07-117-21-41-0089 08-117-21-32-0058 08-117-21-32-0085 18-117-21-12-0056
07-117-21-41-0090 08-117-21-32-0059 08-117-21-32-0086 18-117-21-13-0088
07-117-21-41-0091 08-117-21-32-0060 08-117-21-32-0087 18-117-21-13-0089
07-117-21-41-0092 08-117-21-32-0061 08-117-21-32-0088 18-117-21-13-0090
07-117-21-41-0093 08-117-21-32-0062 08-117-21-32-0089 18-117-21-31-0063
07-117-21-41-0094 08-117-21-32-0063 08-117-21-32-0090 18-117-21-34-0021
07-117-21-41-0095 08-117-21-32-0064 08-117-21-32-0091 18-117-21-34-0022
07-117-21-41-0096 08-117-21-32-0065 08-117-21-32-0092
SECTION I.
MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NARRATIVE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
The following property was included in the Redevelopment Project area as a result of the March 18, 1996
Plan modifications:
PID Numbers:
08-117-21-32-0050
18-117-21-31-0001
18-117-21-12-0005
07-117-21-44-0103
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The following properties are the current list of property identification numbers for the district due
to property subdivisions and replatting:
See attached map in Appendix A showing the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project and the Victoria
Ponds Tax Increment Financing District.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 10
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-1
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
A.Forward
The City, staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite and create the Victoria
Ponds Tax Increment Financing District (The “Victoria Ponds District”) in the Redevelopment Project Area.
B.Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City has certain statutory powers pursuant to the TIF Act to assist
in financing eligible activities related to these development needs.
This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Victoria Ponds District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and EDA has certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections
469.174 through 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"),
to assist in financing public costs related to this project.
The following contains the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for District
No. 1.
C.Statement of Objectives
The Victoria Ponds District currently consists of 4 parcels of land. Present plans on the site include the
construction of 74 owner occupied townhouse units. The tax increment assistance is intended to assist the
developer with on site soil problems. At this time the estimated cost of the soil correction is $760,000. The
estimated total public cost of the project is approximately $1,700,000.
The activities contemplated in the present Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan do not
preclude the undertaking of other qualified redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur
over the life of the tax increment district.
The Victoria Ponds District is expected to achieve many of the objectives set forth the section
“Redevelopment Plan Objectives” in the Redevelopment Plan.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District is being
modified to provide budgetary authority to utilize increased tax increments collected from the District
and to modify the budget to reflect actual project activity to date and to bring it into compliance with
the State Auditor budget requirements.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 11
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-2
D.Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the Victoria
Ponds District by the City and is further described in Section G of this Plan.
2. Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of the developer's plan relating to the project and completion
of the necessary legal requirements, the City may sell to the developer
selected properties that they may acquire within the Victoria Ponds District
or may lease land or facilities to the developer.
4. The City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets
work within the Victoria Ponds District.
E.Legal Description of Property in the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District
The Victoria Ponds District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by parcel numbers
listed below:
PID Numbers
08-117-21-32-0050
18-117-21-31-0001
18-117-21-12-0005
07-117-21-44-0103
See the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the Victoria Ponds District.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcel list on the
following page:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 12
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-3
07-117-21-41-0072 07-117-21-41-0097 08-117-21-32-0066 08-117-21-32-0093
07-117-21-41-0074 07-117-21-41-0098 08-117-21-32-0067 08-117-21-32-0094
07-117-21-41-0075 07-117-21-41-0099 08-117-21-32-0068 08-117-21-32-0095
07-117-21-41-0076 07-117-21-41-0100 08-117-21-32-0069 08-117-21-32-0096
07-117-21-41-0077 07-117-21-41-0101 08-117-21-32-0071 08-117-21-32-0097
07-117-21-41-0078 07-117-21-41-0102 08-117-21-32-0074 08-117-21-32-0098
07-117-21-41-0079 07-117-21-41-0103 08-117-21-32-0075 08-117-21-32-0099
07-117-21-41-0080 07-117-21-41-0104 08-117-21-32-0076 08-117-21-32-0100
07-117-21-41-0081 07-117-21-41-0105 08-117-21-32-0077 18-117-21-12-0048
07-117-21-41-0082 07-117-21-41-0106 08-117-21-32-0078 18-117-21-12-0049
07-117-21-41-0083 07-117-21-41-0107 08-117-21-32-0079 18-117-21-12-0050
07-117-21-41-0084 07-117-21-44-0103 08-117-21-32-0080 18-117-21-12-0051
07-117-21-41-0085 08-117-21-32-0054 08-117-21-32-0081 18-117-21-12-0052
07-117-21-41-0086 08-117-21-32-0055 08-117-21-32-0082 18-117-21-12-0053
07-117-21-41-0087 08-117-21-32-0056 08-117-21-32-0083 18-117-21-12-0054
07-117-21-41-0088 08-117-21-32-0057 08-117-21-32-0084 18-117-21-12-0055
07-117-21-41-0089 08-117-21-32-0058 08-117-21-32-0085 18-117-21-12-0056
07-117-21-41-0090 08-117-21-32-0059 08-117-21-32-0086 18-117-21-13-0088
07-117-21-41-0091 08-117-21-32-0060 08-117-21-32-0087 18-117-21-13-0089
07-117-21-41-0092 08-117-21-32-0061 08-117-21-32-0088 18-117-21-13-0090
07-117-21-41-0093 08-117-21-32-0062 08-117-21-32-0089 18-117-21-31-0063
07-117-21-41-0094 08-117-21-32-0063 08-117-21-32-0090 18-117-21-34-0021
07-117-21-41-0095 08-117-21-32-0064 08-117-21-32-0091 18-117-21-34-0022
07-117-21-41-0096 08-117-21-32-0065 08-117-21-32-0092
F.Classification of the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District
The City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment
Financing District to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10 as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following
conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not
including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance; or
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or
infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad
rights-of-way.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 13
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-4
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. If the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the
building is not disqualified as structurally substandard, the municipality may make such a
determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of
repair and rehabilitation of the building.
(c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other
improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements.
In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City relies on the following facts and findings:
1. The Victoria Ponds District consists of vacant, unused, under used, inappropriately used, or
infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way.
G.Property To Be Acquired
The City may acquire any parcel within the Victoria Ponds District including interior and adjacent street
rights of way.
1. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to accomplish one
or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities
and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired:
The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing
sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions will
be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The parcels on the following page may be acquired with tax increments generated from the District.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 14
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-5
07-117-21-41-0072 07-117-21-41-0097 08-117-21-32-0066 08-117-21-32-0093
07-117-21-41-0074 07-117-21-41-0098 08-117-21-32-0067 08-117-21-32-0094
07-117-21-41-0075 07-117-21-41-0099 08-117-21-32-0068 08-117-21-32-0095
07-117-21-41-0076 07-117-21-41-0100 08-117-21-32-0069 08-117-21-32-0096
07-117-21-41-0077 07-117-21-41-0101 08-117-21-32-0071 08-117-21-32-0097
07-117-21-41-0078 07-117-21-41-0102 08-117-21-32-0074 08-117-21-32-0098
07-117-21-41-0079 07-117-21-41-0103 08-117-21-32-0075 08-117-21-32-0099
07-117-21-41-0080 07-117-21-41-0104 08-117-21-32-0076 08-117-21-32-0100
07-117-21-41-0081 07-117-21-41-0105 08-117-21-32-0077 18-117-21-12-0048
07-117-21-41-0082 07-117-21-41-0106 08-117-21-32-0078 18-117-21-12-0049
07-117-21-41-0083 07-117-21-41-0107 08-117-21-32-0079 18-117-21-12-0050
07-117-21-41-0084 07-117-21-44-0103 08-117-21-32-0080 18-117-21-12-0051
07-117-21-41-0085 08-117-21-32-0054 08-117-21-32-0081 18-117-21-12-0052
07-117-21-41-0086 08-117-21-32-0055 08-117-21-32-0082 18-117-21-12-0053
07-117-21-41-0087 08-117-21-32-0056 08-117-21-32-0083 18-117-21-12-0054
07-117-21-41-0088 08-117-21-32-0057 08-117-21-32-0084 18-117-21-12-0055
07-117-21-41-0089 08-117-21-32-0058 08-117-21-32-0085 18-117-21-12-0056
07-117-21-41-0090 08-117-21-32-0059 08-117-21-32-0086 18-117-21-13-0088
07-117-21-41-0091 08-117-21-32-0060 08-117-21-32-0087 18-117-21-13-0089
07-117-21-41-0092 08-117-21-32-0061 08-117-21-32-0088 18-117-21-13-0090
07-117-21-41-0093 08-117-21-32-0062 08-117-21-32-0089 18-117-21-31-0063
07-117-21-41-0094 08-117-21-32-0063 08-117-21-32-0090 18-117-21-34-0021
07-117-21-41-0095 08-117-21-32-0064 08-117-21-32-0091 18-117-21-34-0022
07-117-21-41-0096 08-117-21-32-0065 08-117-21-32-0092
H.Estimate of Project Costs
Currently under consideration is a proposal by the City to encourage construction of 74 townhouse units. To
facilitate this project, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain
eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs associated with Victoria Ponds District are outlined in the
following line item budget.
Estimate of Public Costs
Item Estimate of Costs
Soil Correction $760,000
Public Improvements, Site Improvements
and Land Acquisition 770,000
10% City Administration 170,000
TOTAL $1,700,000
Estimated costs associated with the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District are subject to change.
The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed $1,700,000. No more
than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the Victoria Ponds District will be spent on
activities related to redevelopment outside of the Victoria Ponds District (including administrative costs,
which are considered to be spent outside of the Victoria Ponds District).
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 15
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-6
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
Public improvement costs, utilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs
outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The City and EDA reserve the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to
the City, the EDA and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property
taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other
contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The estimate of public costs expected to be paid with tax increments associated with the original and
modified District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $1,500,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $500,000
Public Utilities $0
Parking Facilities $0
Streets and Sidewalks $85,000
Interest $800,000
Return to County $1,000,000
Other Public Improvements $1,930,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$500,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $6,315,000
Transfer Out $10,000
Bond Principal $1,200,000
Loan Principal $4,000,000
The above referenced budget includes the original TIF budget plus the budget for the modification of
the district.
The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms.
It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $6,315,000 as is presented in the budget above.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a
modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will
not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory
requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax
increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or
redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of the Project, (including
administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations
as described in this TIF Plan.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 16
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-7
I.Bonded Indebtedness
The City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness as a result of the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
As presently proposed, the city is not planning to issue General Obligation Bonds.
The City intends to finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan by
reimbursing the Developer on a “pay-as-you-go” basis for eligible activities paid for by the Developer.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to
the EDA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property
taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contribu-
tions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of
the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by one or more pay-as-you-go notes.
Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal
amount of bonded indebtedness, including general obligation (GO) TIF bonds, pay-as-you-go notes or
other indebtedness by tax increments, will not exceed $1,200,000 without a modification to the TIF
Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that up to $10,000 in transfers may
be financed with tax increment revenues.
This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or
incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The other financing sources listed above is included for purposes of OSA reporting for the TIF District.
It is not intended to be cumulative. Transfers are included in case money is moved from one fund to
another before an expenditure.
J.Sources of Revenue
Public improvements costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the
Estimate of Costs (Subsection H) will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
In order to facilitate the redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax
increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and
uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table.
*The chart below includes the sources of funds for the original and modified District.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 17
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-8
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $6,100,000
Interest Income $200,000
Local Contribution $15,000
PROJECT REVENUES $6,315,000
Transfer In $1,210,000
Loan Principal $4,000,000
The other financing uses listed above is included for purposes of OSA reporting for the TIF District.
It is not intended to be cumulative. TIF is expected to be used for the project costs listed above, which
is a not-to-exceed budget rather than an expected budget of costs.
Pursuant to MN Statute 469.175 Sub 1 (5), it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including
administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $6,315,000. For
purposes of OSA reporting forms, it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including financing
which will be paid for with tax increment will equal $11,525,000 as is presented in the budget on the
previous page.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a
modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will
not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory
requirements. Project costs may be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside
of the District but within the boundaries of the Project, (including administrative costs, which are
considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
K.Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 7 and Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, the
Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the Victoria Ponds District is based on the market values
placed on the property by the assessor in 1995 for taxes payable 1996. The original tax capacity of the
property will be $29,351.
Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the County Auditor shall
certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1998) the amount by which the original value has
increased or decreased as a result of a change in tax exempt property within the Tax Increment Financing
District, reduction or enlargement of the Tax Increment Financing District or changes in connection with
previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of the District
declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the ONTC was certified (beginning in payment
year 1998), the amount the ONTC has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
3. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 18
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-9
4. change in the use of the property and classification; or
5. change in state law governing class rates.
The original local tax rate for the Victoria Ponds District will be the local tax rate for 1996 taxes. Since the
Pay 1996 tax rate is unavailable at this time, the proposed (“Truth-in-Taxation”) Pay 1996 rate is being used
for estimates. The proposed Pay 1996 tax rate for the Victoria Ponds District is 1.407510.
L.Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 Subdivision 4 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
Subdivision 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the Victoria Ponds District, within
the Redevelopment Project upon completion of the project, will annually approximate $152,891 or $215,196
in tax increment. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1998. The project tax capacity listed
is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Original Tax Capacity 29,351
Estimated Project Tax Capacity 182,242
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 152,891
M Duration of the Victoria Ponds District
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 479.175, Subdivision 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration
of the Victoria Ponds District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.176, subdivision 1(b), the duration of the Victoria Ponds District will be 25 years from the date of receipt
of the first increment by the City. The date of receipt by the City of St Louis Park of the first tax increment
will be approximately July, 1998. Thus, it is estimated that Victoria Ponds District, including any
modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the
Plan is satisfied. The City does reserve the right to decertify the Victoria Ponds District prior to the legally
required date.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of
the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax
increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment was July 1998. Thus, it is
estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other
changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City reserves the right to
decertify the District prior to the legally required date
N.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without
the creation of the Victoria Ponds District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the
impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions
is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City, the
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 19
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-10
following estimated impact of the Victoria Ponds District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not
met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
TAXING
JURISDICTION
ENTITY’S
PROPOSED
1995/96 TOTAL
NET TAX
CAPACITY
CAPTURED
TAX
CAPACITY
(CTC)
PERCENT OF
CTC TO
ENTITY
TOTAL
Hennepin County 1,006,485,910 152,891 0.02%
ISD No.283 39,290,053 152,891 0.39%
City of St Louis Park 42,471,236 152,891 0.36%
Other N/A N/A N/A
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
ENTITY PROPOSED
1995/96
TAX RATE
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
CTC POTENTIAL
TAXES
Hennepin County 38.099 27.07% 152,891 58,250
ISD No. 283 76.0470 54.03% 152,891 116,269
City of St Louis Park 20.0260 14.23% 152,891 30,618
Other 6.579 4.67%152,891 10,059
TOTAL 1.40751 100.00% 152,891 215,196
The Authority elects the calculation of tax increment under Section 469.177, subd. 3(a), which means that
fiscal disparities contribution will be made from outside the District.
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the Proposed (“Truth-in-Taxation”) 1995/Pay 1996 rate, used for estimates only. The
total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 1996 figures. The Victoria Ponds District will
be certified under the 1995/Pay 1996 rates which were not available at the time the TIF Plan was assembled.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 20
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-11
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by
the TIF Plan would not occur without the creation of the District. However, the City has determined
that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that,
therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the
District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
*The charts below include the captured tax capacity for the original and modified District.
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Estimated
2007/2008
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,471,599,883 385,339 0.0262%
City of St. Louis Park 54,480,804 385,339 0.7073%
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 513,509,111 385,339 0.0750%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Estimated
2007/2008
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.387310 37.50% 385,339 149,246
City of St. Louis Park 0.361430 34.99% 385,339 139,273
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 0.195750 18.95% 385,339 75,430
Other 0.088380 8.56%385,339 34,056
Total 1.032870 100.00%398,005
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The
tax rate used for calculations is the 2007/Pay 2008 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed
above are based on estimated Pay 2008 figures.
O.Modifications to the Victoria Ponds District
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the
geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness
to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of
the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in
the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the City; increase in total estimated tax increment
expenditures; or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the
notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The
geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 21
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-12
following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the county auditor. Modifications to the
Victoria Ponds District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be
recorded in the Plan.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the
District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the
original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be
capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will
be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the City, shall be approved upon the
notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the
original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but
shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity
by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the
determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11 must
be documented. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District and (2) (A) the current net
tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those
parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that, notwithstanding M.S.,
Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net
tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District.
The City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a
budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
P.Administrative Expenses
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, and Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.176, Subdivision 3 administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts
paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services,
including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real
property in the district, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses
located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to Section 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by
bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall
be used to pay any administrative expenses for the tax increment financing district which exceed ten percent
of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax
increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 22
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-13
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the
county's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the Victoria Ponds District. The county
may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were
incurred.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 177, Subdivision 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount
equal to 0.1 percent of any increment distributed to an authority or municipality and the county treasurer shall
pay the amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures
of the City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including
architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical
development of the real property in the project;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses
located in the project; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount
bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were
used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30,
1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal
consultants, and planning or economic development consultants.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment
of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently
.36 percent) of any increment distributed to the City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State
Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of
examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted
annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Q.Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, no tax increment shall be paid to
the City for the Tax Increment Financing District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the
Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the Tax Increment Financing District by the
County Auditor unless within the three (3) years period:
(a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 469.178, or in aid of a project
pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 23
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-14
474 prior to August 1, 1979, or
(b) the City has acquired property within the Tax Increment Financing District,
or
(c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements
within the Tax Increment Financing District.
The bonds must be issued, or the City must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to
be constructed by approximately December 1998.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the Tax
Increment Financing District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the
debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment
of the bonds at maturity or redemption date.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, no demolition,
rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified
improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including
sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment
financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax
increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the
original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the
tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax
increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual
disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the tax
capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the
original tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce
the provisions of this subdivision... For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements
are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3)
substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The City or a property owner must improve parcels within the Victoria Ponds District by approximately
March 2000.
R.Use of Tax Increment
All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4 and Section 273.1399, Subdivision 1. The
revenues shall be used for the following purposes:
1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of the Development District
pursuant to the Development District Act;
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 24
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-15
3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget; and
4. to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in Section 469.176, Subd. 4, of
the Tax Increment Act.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limits.
Tax increments generated in the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District will be paid by Hennepin
County to the City of St Louis Park for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The City will pay to the
developers annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer’s agreement to reimburse
the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and
administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for City administration (10%) and the costs of public
improvement activities outside Victoria Ponds District.
S.Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
The City shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor
or its notice of Tax Increment Financing District enlargement with a listing of all properties within the Tax
Increment Financing District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the
eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the municipality
pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 3, of the Tax Increment Financing Act. The County Auditor shall increase
the original value of the Tax Increment Financing District by the value of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed the area to be included
in the Victoria Ponds District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the
18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City. If the building permit had been issued
within the 18 month period preceding approval of the plan by the City, the county auditor shall increase the
original tax capacity of the district by the valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was
issued.
T.Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment
exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount
necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City
shall use the excess amount to do any of the following:
1. prepay the outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing
jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.176, Subd. 2.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment
exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the
amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 25
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-16
3, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following:
1. prepay the outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment herefore;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions
in proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176,
Subd. 2.
In addition, the City may, subject to the limitation set forth herein choose to modify the tax increment
plan as described in Section N in order to finance additional public costs of Redevelopment Project No.
1.
The City must spend or return the excess increments under Section 476.176, sub 2, paragraph (c)
within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the City, may, subject to the limitations set
forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in
Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the TIF District.
U.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Project Plan
and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may
be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings,
landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative
deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with city plans and
ordinances. The City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 5, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, no more than twenty-five percent
(25%), by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the Tax Increment Financing District as set forth in the
tax increment financing plan shall at any time be owned by the City as a result of acquisition with the
proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, without the City
having, prior to acquisition in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the acreage, concluded an agreement
for the development or of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the City should the
development not be completed.
V.Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City may enter into an agreement in
recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes
a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the Victoria Ponds
District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and
specifications for the improvements constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land
upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in
the assessment agreement appear, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor
may certify the minimum market value agreement.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 26
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-17
W.Administration of the Victoria Ponds District
Administration of the Victoria Ponds District will be handled by the City Manager of the City of St Louis
Park.
X.Financial Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivisions 5, 6, and 6(a); an authority must file an annual
disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts with the Office of the State Auditor, the county
board, school board, and Department of Revenue.
Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 5, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the City must file an annual
disclosure report for the Tax Increment Financing District. The report shall be filed with the county board,
county auditor, school board, and the State Auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the
following information:
1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account;
3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding
bond indebtedness;
4. the original net tax capacity of the Tax Increment Financing District;
5. the captured value retained by the City;
6. the captured value shared with other taxing districts;
7. the tax increment received;
8. any additional information to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment financing plan.
Section 469.175, Subd. 5, of the Tax Increment Financing Act also provides that an annual statement showing
the tax increment received an expended in that year, the original value, captured value, amount of outstanding
bonded indebtedness, the amount of the district’s increment s paid to other governmental bodies, the amount
paid for administrative costs, the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and
improvements located outside of the district, and any additional information the City deems necessary shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the City must
annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1, a financial report which shall:
1. provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in the district;
2. permit comparison and reconciliation with the City’s accounts and financial reports;
3. permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the tax increment district; and
4. be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
1. the original net tax capacity of the district;
2. the captured net tax capacity of the district, including the amount of any captured net tax
capacity shared with other taxing districts;
3. for the reporting period and for the duration of the district, the amount budgeted under the
tax increment financing plan, and the actual amount expended for, at lest, the following
categories:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 27
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-18
a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase;
b. site improvements or preparation costs;
c. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or
other similar public improvements;
d.. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the authority;
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference
purposes, or other similar public improvements;
4. for properties sold to developers, the total costs of the property to the authority and the price
paid by the developer;
5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvements or other qualifying costs.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 6a, the City must also annually report to the
State Auditor before or on July 1 of each year the following amounts for the entire City:
1. the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year; and
2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current
calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax
increment financing bonds.
and for each tax increment financing district within the City:
1. the type of tax increment financing district;
2. date on which the district is required to be decertified;
3. amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements
and the used of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and
are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding
calendar year;
4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year;
5. whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment
revenues to be expended outside of the tax increment financing district;
6. any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards.
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the City must undertake financial reporting for
all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor
and School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that
an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before
August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S.,
Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 28
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-19
Y.Municipal Approval and Public Purpose
The reasons and facts supporting the finds for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Victoria Ponds District as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as
follows:
1. Finding that the Victoria Ponds District is a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through
private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment
financing is deemed necessary and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably
be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in
the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present
value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the
Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed
as described above. Such analysis indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the
proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site
absent the establishment of the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax
increments (See Appendix C).
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Victoria Ponds District conforms to the general
plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The site is appropriately zoned. The Tax Increment Financing Plan has been found by resolution to
conform to the general development plan of the City by the Planning Commission on February 21,
1996.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Victoria Ponds District will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of
Redevelopment Project and Development District by private enterprise.
The establishment of the Victoria Ponds District will result in increased employment for the City,
renovate substandard properties, and increase the tax base of the City and State.
Z.State Tax Increment Financing Aid
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification
was requested after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid
(RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and
Agricultural Aid (HACA) second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying
captured tax capacity (QCTC) of the tax increment financing district.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, Subdivision 6, for tax increment financing districts
certified after June 30, 1994, the City may choose an option to the LGA-HACA penalty. A tax increment
financing district is exempt if the City elects at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan to
make a qualifying local contribution. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City must make a
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 29
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-20
qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage. The local contribution for a
redevelopment district is 7.5 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City is limited
to two percent of the City’s net tax capacity.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the authority or municipality,
such as the general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or a state grand-in-aid which may be spent for
general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax
increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be
used for general government purposes.
The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-HACA
penalty.
AA Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, the governing body may elect one of two
methods to calculate fiscal disparities. It the calculations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177,
subdivision 3, clause a, are followed the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original tax capacity and the current tax capacity shall be determined before the application of
the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 473F. Where the original tax capacity is equal to or
greater than the current tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment
determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference
between the original tax capacity and the current tax capacity is the captured tax capacity. This
amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing
plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured tax capacity of the authority from the taxable
value of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax capacity rates. The tax
capacity rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured tax capacity of the
authority as well as the taxable value of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension
of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax capacity rates or (B) the original tax capacity rate to
the retained captured tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
If the calculations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause b, are followed, the
following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions
of chapter 473F. The current tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial
tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity
ratio determined pursuant to section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original tax capacity is
equal to or greater than the current tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax
increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the
difference between the original tax capacity and the current tax capacity is the captured tax capacity.
This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment
financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured tax capacity of the
authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured tax capacity of the authority from the taxable
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 30
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-21
value of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax capacity rates. The tax
capacity rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured tax capacity of the
authority as well as the taxable value of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension
of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax capacity rates or (B) the original tax capacity rate to
the retained captured tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The Authority shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method
of computation of fiscal disparities the authority elected. The City of St Louis Park will choose to calculate
fiscal disparities by clause a.
According to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
AB.County Road Costs
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1a, the county board may require the authority
to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by
tax increment will in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring
construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within
the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
The improvements outlined in the Plan serve as notice to the county that the development of the residential
facilities will be assisted with tax increment. In the opinion of the Authority and consultants, the proposed
development will have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to
improve county roads, it must notify the Authority within thirty days of receipt of this plan.
AC.Economic Development and Job Creation
To the extent applicable, the City agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.991, which states
that a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth
purposes, including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in
Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix D).
AD.Summary
The City of St Louis Park is establishing the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District to preserve and
enhance the tax base, redevelopment substandard areas, and increase employment of the City. The Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Victoria Ponds Tax Increment Financing District was prepared by Ehlers and
Associates, Inc., 2950 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4100,
telephone (612) 339-8291.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 31
TIF Plan for the Victoria Ponds Tax Increment District 2-22
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The District is being modified to provide budgetary authority to utilize increased tax increments
collected from the District and to modify the budget to reflect actual project activity to date and to
bring it into compliance with the State Auditor budget requirements.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 32
Appendix A-1
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAP OF REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 33
Appendix B-1
07-117-21-41-0072 07-117-21-41-0097 08-117-21-32-0066 08-117-21-32-0093
07-117-21-41-0074 07-117-21-41-0098 08-117-21-32-0067 08-117-21-32-0094
07-117-21-41-0075 07-117-21-41-0099 08-117-21-32-0068 08-117-21-32-0095
07-117-21-41-0076 07-117-21-41-0100 08-117-21-32-0069 08-117-21-32-0096
07-117-21-41-0077 07-117-21-41-0101 08-117-21-32-0071 08-117-21-32-0097
07-117-21-41-0078 07-117-21-41-0102 08-117-21-32-0074 08-117-21-32-0098
07-117-21-41-0079 07-117-21-41-0103 08-117-21-32-0075 08-117-21-32-0099
07-117-21-41-0080 07-117-21-41-0104 08-117-21-32-0076 08-117-21-32-0100
07-117-21-41-0081 07-117-21-41-0105 08-117-21-32-0077 18-117-21-12-0048
07-117-21-41-0082 07-117-21-41-0106 08-117-21-32-0078 18-117-21-12-0049
07-117-21-41-0083 07-117-21-41-0107 08-117-21-32-0079 18-117-21-12-0050
07-117-21-41-0084 07-117-21-44-0103 08-117-21-32-0080 18-117-21-12-0051
07-117-21-41-0085 08-117-21-32-0054 08-117-21-32-0081 18-117-21-12-0052
07-117-21-41-0086 08-117-21-32-0055 08-117-21-32-0082 18-117-21-12-0053
07-117-21-41-0087 08-117-21-32-0056 08-117-21-32-0083 18-117-21-12-0054
07-117-21-41-0088 08-117-21-32-0057 08-117-21-32-0084 18-117-21-12-0055
07-117-21-41-0089 08-117-21-32-0058 08-117-21-32-0085 18-117-21-12-0056
07-117-21-41-0090 08-117-21-32-0059 08-117-21-32-0086 18-117-21-13-0088
07-117-21-41-0091 08-117-21-32-0060 08-117-21-32-0087 18-117-21-13-0089
07-117-21-41-0092 08-117-21-32-0061 08-117-21-32-0088 18-117-21-13-0090
07-117-21-41-0093 08-117-21-32-0062 08-117-21-32-0089 18-117-21-31-0063
07-117-21-41-0094 08-117-21-32-0063 08-117-21-32-0090 18-117-21-34-0021
07-117-21-41-0095 08-117-21-32-0064 08-117-21-32-0091 18-117-21-34-0022
07-117-21-41-0096 08-117-21-32-0065 08-117-21-32-0092
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR
THE VICTORIA PONDS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcel identification
numbers listed below:
PID Numbers
08-117-21-32-0050
18-117-21-31-0001
18-117-21-12-0005
07-117-21-44-0103
(AS MODIFIED APRIL 7, 2008)
The following properties are the current list of property identification numbers for the district due to
property subdivisions and replatting:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 34
APPENDIX C-1
APPENDIX C
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar
year's activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 6a)
Subject: Redevelopment & TIF Plan - Erv's Page 35
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
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:
Request for preliminary plat approval with variances for Isabelle Estates located at 8550 Minnetonka
Blvd.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Isabelle Estates with a lot width variance to
allow a reduction in the amount of the lot that must meet the 75 foot minimum width.
Adopt a resolution denying a variance request for elimination of the requirement to install a sidewalk
along Aquila Ave.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council feel approval should be given to the subdivision and variance requests which
have been made?
BACKGROUND:
Proposed Subdivision
The proposal is to subdivide approximately 1.2 acres located in the northwest corner of Minnetonka
Boulevard and Aquila Avenue South. (See attached location map.) The property contains a single
family home, a three-car garage and a barn, all of which are proposed to be removed. The applicant
proposes to subdivide the property into four single family lots, two of which would have frontage on
Aquila Ave, with the remaining two having frontage on Minnetonka Blvd. Variances to the
Subdivision Ordinance were also requested to reduce the lot width for at least 1/3 of the lot depth,
and the other to not install a sidewalk along Aquila Ave.
Existing Buildings
The existing house was built in 1874, and was extensively remodeled in the 1960s. The house is
thought to be the oldest house in St. Louis Park and the barn is thought to be the only remaining
barn in the City. The house will be removed because it will not meet setback requirements after the
land is platted, and the developer believes the condition of the home makes it unmarketable. The
existing three car garage and barn are proposed to be removed since they will not meet zoning
requirements as a result of the subdivision; the garage will be located within a drainage and utility
easement, and the barn exceeds the size limits for an accessory building.
Because some desire has been expressed in retaining the barn and original house, the applicant will
be coming back to the Planning Commission and City Council for final plat review and approval in
the future. Adjustments to the plat and variances can be made at that time if someone expresses an
interest in buying a lot and keeping one or more of the existing buildings. If the house is to remain,
then either a variance would be needed for the side yard setback, or the proposed property line
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
between lots 2 and 3 would have to shift to the west to meet the required 13.5 foot setback. If the
garage is to remain, then the drainage and utility easement would have to be altered so that the
garage is not located within the easement. Floor area and height variances would also be needed for
the barn to remain.
If the final plat is approved without adjustments or variances to keep the buildings, then they will
have to be removed before the final plat is released for recording.
Driveways
Each lot would have a private driveway typical of other single family homes. The easterly two lots
would have access to Aquila Avenue. The westerly two lots would have separate, private driveways;
however, they would share the same driveway access to Minnetonka Boulevard. The driveways
would access Minnetonka Boulevard at the same point, and immediately split into two separate
driveways, as shown on the attached drawings. The advantage of this layout is that it reduces the
number of access points to Minnetonka Boulevard and does not require a recorded agreement
binding two neighbors to driveway maintenance and cost sharing terms.
Lot Size
The parcel is 1.24 acres. The minimum required lot area is 9,000 square feet, and the minimum
required lot width is 75 feet. The four proposed lots are:
The lot widths are measured at the setback line only, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The lot
sizes are consistent with lot sizes in the neighborhood. There are 11 other lots on the same block as
the subject parcel and they range from 9,526 sf to 17,827 sf in area.
Park and Trail Dedication
The applicant would pay both a park and a trail dedication fee for each of the three new lots. The
park dedication fee is $1,500 per new lot, and the trail dedication fee is $225 per new lot.
Sidewalk along Minnetonka Blvd.
There is an existing sidewalk on the north side of Minnetonka Blvd that extends from Aquila Ave to
the Minneapolis border, and continuing the sidewalk to the west would be a logical extension of the
existing sidewalk system. The County however, would prefer the sidewalk to be a bituminous trail
instead of a concrete sidewalk. The Planning Commission requested a concrete sidewalk since it is
an extension of an existing sidewalk. They thought a pedestrian way should not alternate between
short sections of sidewalk and trail. The plans have been altered to show a concrete sidewalk. The
width is shown to be five feet; however, the city requires six, and the applicant has agreed to make
the change. The revised plans also show the existing crosswalk being relocated to the east. The
relocation is required because the existing crosswalk leads directly into the proposed driveway, which
Lot Lot Area Lot Width
Lot 1 13,895 square feet 75 feet
Lot 2 15,103 square feet 79.8 feet
Lot 3 13,204 square feet 81.3 feet
Lot 4 10,666 square feet 75 feet
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
isn’t allowed because crosswalks need to connect a sidewalk to another sidewalk located directly
across a street.
County Requirements
Minnetonka Boulevard is a County road, and Hennepin County has reviewed the proposed
preliminary plat as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and County regulation. The County
requested an additional seven feet of road right-of-way and a ten foot trail easement over the
property along Minnetonka Boulevard. It was noted that the County does not have current plans to
expand Minnetonka Boulevard or construct a trail in this location; however, the County would like
to preserve the opportunity to do so in the future. The sidewalk proposed to be constructed by the
developer would be built within the ten foot trail easement.
Stormwater
While on-site storage of stormwater is required for many redevelopment projects, stormwater storage
is not required for the construction of individual single family dwellings. The City Engineer has
indicated that the existing stormwater system serving this part of the city has sufficient available
capacity to accommodate the construction of three new homes. Stormwater will continue to follow
a similar path relative to its historical pattern. The existing site has a significant amount of
impervious surface, all of which will be removed, and is slightly less than what is proposed.
Therefore, it is not expected that the amount of stormwater generated will exceed the historical
averages.
The applicant will be required to obtain permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Those permits which will apply to this subdivision include an erosion control permit and a
stormwater management permit.
Topography
The subject property has significant grade change. The highest point is along Minnetonka
Boulevard and includes the area where the existing house sits. It drops ten feet in elevation to the
northwest and 12 feet to the northeast. This topography is ideal for the proposed subdivision as it
requires very little grading, making it possible to preserve the majority of the existing mature trees.
Subdivision Variances
When reviewing a request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, the city considers four
criteria. In summary, the criteria requires that there are special circumstances affecting the property,
that the public health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood is preserved, that the variance corrects
inequities resulting from circumstances such as topography, and that the variance is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed response to each criterion for the lot width variance and the
variance to not install the sidewalk along Aquila Ave follows.
Variance to Lot Width
The applicant provided a drawing showing how the property could be platted into four lots without
a variance. This plat can be created by use of a cul-de-sac, but does not necessarily represent the best
configuration of the lots when the surrounding environment is taken into consideration. Taking
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
this into consideration, the developer and staff believe that the proposed layout is better than the cul-
de-sac option for many reasons, including:
• Decreased impervious surface. By removing the cul-de-sac, the developer is reducing the amount
of potential impervious surface by as much as 8,670 sq ft. (This is nearly equal to the minimum
lot size in the R-1 District which is 9,000 sq ft.)
• Reduce the amount of grading.
• Preserves a large portion of the mature tree grove. Construction of the cul-de-sac and the homes
would result in the removal of all but seven of the 25 trees in the grove. The proposed plat with
an additional rear setback requirement of 50 feet for lots 1 and 2 would preserve 19 of the 25
trees.
• Access to the cul-de-sac would be in close proximity to the intersection of Aquila Ave and
Minnetonka Blvd. The proposed plat removes the cul-de-sac and results in two driveways to
Aquila. The closest driveway would be at least 10 feet further from the intersection than the cul-
de-sac would be. Also, the closest driveway would service only one home, whereas the cul-de-sac
would service all four, and therefore, have more traffic.
• The proposed layout increases the distance between the existing and proposed homes. In the
cul-de-sac design the proposed homes could be located as close as 50 feet to the back wall of the
existing homes to the north. This compares to the closest dimension of 140 feet in the proposed
plat.
• The subdivision ordinance discourages the use of cul-de-sacs.
• The proposed plat results in large back yards ranging from 5,040 sq ft to 6,600 sq ft. The back
yards in the cul-de-sac option range from 2,450 sq ft to 3,750 sq ft.
• The proposed layout reduces the amount of public streets and utilities, items the city would be
required to maintain.
These impacts are discussed in detail below. Both options were shown to the neighborhood. They
overwhelmingly agreed that the variance allows for a superior plat.
The lot width variance is required because Section 26-152(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires the lot width to be measured at the front setback line and to be maintained for at least a
continuous 1/3 of the lot depth. The required lot width is 75 feet and all four lots meet or exceed it.
None of the four lots, however, continue the 75 foot width for a full 1/3 of the lot depth. This
requirement for each lot is described and illustrated below:
Lot 1 is 79 feet wide at the front property line and 69 feet wide at 1/3 of the lot depth. The average
width in the front 1/3 of the lot is 74 feet. This lot requires a six foot variance.
Lot 2 is 102 feet wide at the front property line and 66 feet wide at 1/3 of the lot depth. The
average width in the front 1/3 of the lot is 84 feet. This lot requires a nine foot variance.
Lot 3 is 81 feet wide at the front property line and 68 feet wide at 1/3 of the lot depth. The average
width in the front 1/3 of the lot is 74.5 feet. This lot requires a seven foot variance.
Lot 4 is 61 feet wide at the front property line and 72 feet wide at 1/3 of the lot depth. The average
width in the front 1/3 of the lot is 66.5 feet. The ordinance, however, does not require the width to
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
be met at the front 1/3 of the lot; it can be met with any contiguous 1/3 of the lot depth as long as it
incorporates the front setback line. With this in mind, the lot is closer to conformance if we start
the 1/3 depth at the setback line and extend it toward the back, then the width is consistently 72 feet
wide throughout the 1/3 requirement and requires only a three foot variance.
The widest one-third of the lot depth of each lot is outlined in blue.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
The following analysis compares the proposal to the four variance criteria found in the subdivision
ordinance.
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner
reasonable use of the land.
The property has a large mature grove of trees on the northwest corner that provides natural
screening between the existing neighborhood and the proposed homes. Platting this property into
four lots without variances would remove some of this natural landscape and buffer. The
preservation of the buffer would create a special circumstance that would “deprive the applicant
reasonable use of the land” since the cul-de-sac cannot be built without the removal of up to 18 of
the 25 trees making up the buffer.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated.
Granting the variance allows the developer to preserve the grove of mature trees located in the
northwest corner of the property. These trees are important for the neighbor’s privacy and the value
of the surrounding neighborhood. Both the amount of grading required to build the cul-de-sac and
the location of the new homes resulting from the cul-de-sac would require the majority of the trees
to be removed.
The cul-de-sac plan results in the back wall of the new homes to be as close as 50 feet to the back
wall of the existing homes to the north. By granting the requested variances and not building the
cul-de-sac, the distance is increased to 140 feet at the closest point. These dimensions are shown on
the cul-de-sac plan.
Granting the variance would require the driveways of two of the new homes to access Minnetonka
Blvd. Generally the city and county try to minimize the number of driveways to roads such as
Minnetonka Blvd., but the city and county allow them when safety is not sacrificed and steps are
taken to reduce the potential for accidents. These steps include combining two driveway access
points into one and requiring turn arounds on the driveways so vehicles leaving the property are not
required to back up onto Minnetonka Blvd. Both of these conditions have been written into the
design, and are included in the staff recommendation. The County said it will grant the driveway
permit with those conditions.
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as
topography, etc.
The subject property has significant grade change. The highest point is along Minnetonka
Boulevard and includes the area of the existing house. From there it drops ten feet in elevation to
the northwest and 12 feet to the northeast. This topography would work well with the proposed
subdivision as it requires very little grading, making it possible to preserve the existing mature trees
making up the buffer.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s Stormwater Management Plan and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s best
management practices encourage new development to minimize the amount of impervious surface.
As a result, the city has consistently worked through development and redevelopment to reduce the
amount of impervious surface. With this in mind, the amount of impervious surface would be
reduced by not constructing the cul-de-sac.
Variance to Sidewalk
The applicant requested a variance to the subdivision requirement of Section 26-153 “Streets and
Alleys” that states “Sidewalks or multipurpose trail ways shall be provided on both sides of all public
streets whether existing or new.” The developer is asking to be exempt from the requirement to
build a sidewalk along Aquila Ave.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request, however upon review, the
Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the requested variance, and that
the sidewalk be installed as required. The following analysis reflects the Planning Commission’s
recommendation:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner
reasonable use of the land.
The existing conditions of the site do not make it impossible or difficult to install the sidewalk and
the sidewalk will not prevent reasonable use of the land.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated.
The topography of the site is such that a sidewalk is needed for the safety and welfare of the residents
in the area. The grade of Aquila Ave drops six feet in elevation along the plat and at the same time
the direction of Aquila Ave turns nearly 90 degrees to the east. The sidewalk will create a safe haven
for pedestrians approaching the intersection of Minnetonka Blvd and Aquila Ave.
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as
topography, etc.
There are no inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship or topography. The sidewalk is still
necessary as outlined in criterion #2 above even if it never extends further into the neighborhood.
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the ordinance is that eventually there will be sidewalks or trails along every street in the
city, and this should be followed even if it means the sidewalks will be installed in a piecemeal
fashion
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Isabelle Estates Preliminary Plat & Variances
Neighborhood and Planning Commission Review:
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 11, 2007. Five neighbors attended, and all
were generally agreeable to the proposal. The notes from the meeting are attached for your review.
The neighbors preferred the subdivision option with the variances because it kept the new houses
further away from theirs, and it preserved the mature grove of trees in the northwest corner of the
property. The neighbors believe the trees add value to the neighborhood and would preserve their
privacy by acting as a buffer between their homes and the new ones.
Planning Commission
The public hearing was conducted and closed by the Planning Commission on January 2, 2008.
The Commission tabled consideration of the applications.
The applications were brought to the Planning Commission in a study session on February 13th. At
this meeting, the applicant agreed to an easement or deed restriction over the north 50 feet of lots 1
and 2. This would prevent a house from being constructed where the grove of trees is located. The
developer also agreed to increase the east side easement from five feet to ten feet on lot 4. The
revised plans are attached for your review.
At its March 5, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary
plat with one variance to allow the 1/3 contiguous lot depth to be less than the required 75 foot lot
width. They also recommended a denial of the request for a variance to not install the required
sidewalk along Aquila Ave.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This subdivision would result in the creation of four new single family homes that would increase
the value of the housing stock in this neighborhood and would enable four families to choose St.
Louis Park as their home.
Attachments: Location map
Notes from the Neighborhood meeting
Letter from the Applicant
Proposed Resolution
Preliminary Plat
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 9
Notes from neighborhood meeting for proposed subdivision of 8550 Minnetonka
Blvd, Isabelle Estates conducted on December 11, 2007, 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm.
In attendance were:
Peter Knaeble, President - Terra Engineering and applicant
Matt Pavek, Project Engineer - Terra Engineering and applicant
Hadley & Harvey Kohn, 8724 Mtka. Blvd.
Mike & Bernice Frisch, 8611 W. 29th St.
Jim Kellogg, 2820 Aquila Ave. S.
Loran Paprocki, City Council Person
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
The applicants, Mr. Knaeble and Mr. Pavek, explained their proposal to subdivide the
subject property into four single family lots.
Mr. Kohn, living at 8724 Minnetonka Blvd asked if the tree line along the side property
line will be maintained. The developer responded saying the large clump of trees on the
back half of the lot will be preserved, however, there are some trees in the front and along
the west side that will have to be removed for the new home construction.
Mr. Knaeble said that they plan to tear down the existing house and barn, and probably
the garage. If someone is interested in purchasing the existing house, then they will make
some slight adjustments to the proposed property lines so that it can meet the required
setbacks and be preserved.
Mr. Kohn stated that it is the oldest house in SLP. Peter said someone else who was
interested in developing the property spoke to the SLP historical society. The society
does not have the ability to purchase the house, and they want to walk through the house
to take pictures before it is removed.
There was considerable conversation about driveway access to the lots. Mr. Knaeble said
he prefers building a private driveway that would service the westerly two or three lots.
This driveway would access Aquila, and would result in no driveways to Minnetonka
Blvd. The private driveway would be protected by an easement, and each affected
property owner would be party to covenants governing how it is maintained and how the
cost is distributed. The city would not be a party to the covenants and easement.
Mr. Knaeble also shared an alternative that had the driveways for the easterly two lots
going to Aquila Ave, and the driveways to the westerly two lots going to Minnetonka
Blvd, but sharing one curb cut onto Minnetonka Blvd. The driveways would not be
shared, and an easement would not be required.
Mr. Kohn asked if the private driveway could be constructed behind the homes. The
developer said that is not feasible due to the large amount of grading that would be
required and it would also result in the loss of the large grove of trees they are trying to
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 10
preserve. Mr. and Mrs. Frisch live to the north of the cluster of trees located on the north
side of the subject property. They expressed their interested in preserving those trees,
and did not like the idea of having the private road in their back yards.
The residents did not seem to have a clear preference over the two driveway alternatives
(private road in the front yards, or one shared access onto Minnetonka Blvd). Staff
shared the comments received at the Development Review Committee (a staff level,
interdepartmental meeting) which favored the one shared driveway to Minnetonka Blvd.
This would avoid a permanent commitment between three property owners which would
require them to continually agree on terms of maintenance and how to handle other issues
such as parking on the driveway. This option requires a turn around on the property so
the home owners will not back up onto Minnetonka Blvd.
Mr. Knaeble stated that they are only subdividing the property, and are not building the
homes. The lots will be sold to either builders or individuals who will then find a builder.
He anticipates the homes to be valued between $400,000 and $500,000.
It was brought up that the required sidewalk could be constructed elsewhere, if the
variance is granted. There was some conversation about gaining access to the regional
trail.
There was some conversation about the difficulty in making the turn from west bound
Minnetonka Blvd to Aquila Ave. It was concluded that this proposed development would
not make the situation worse, and that the recent project lowering the bridge elevation
may have made it better. No requests were made of the developer on this issue.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 11
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 12
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 13
G:\Community Development\APPLICATIONS\2007\07-56-S 8550 Minnetonka subdivision with variance (Isabelle Estates)\CC -
reports\exhibits\draft resolution plat.doc
D R A F T
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ISABELLE ESTATES
WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR
LOT WIDTH
AND
DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Westling Trust and Golden Valley Land Company, owner and subdivider of the
land proposed to be platted as Isabelle Estates have submitted an application for approval of
preliminary plat of said subdivision with variances from the subdivision ordinance for
installation of sidewalks and required lot width (Sections 26-153(h)(1) and 26-152(b)(1)) in the
manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with
the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed preliminary plat is situated upon the following described lands in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 7, Township
117, Range 21 lying southerly of the plat of West Lynn, westerly of the plat of
West Lynn Second Addition, and easterly of the easterly lines of Registered Land
Surveys No. 162 and No. 703; except that part thereof embraced within
Registered Land Survey No. 230. Torrens
4. On January 2, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
tabled consideration to a future meeting. On March 5, 2008 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the preliminary plat with conditions. At that same meeting, the
Commission also recommended approval (5-1 vote) of the variance to the lot width and
recommended denial (6-0 vote) of the variance to not install the sidewalk along Aquila Ave.
according to the following findings:
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 14
-2-
VARIANCE TO LOT WIDTH
a. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to extreme grade changes and an
existing mature grove of trees.
b. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The
granting of the variance will enable a superior subdivision by preserving an existing natural
buffer provided by the grove of trees and will increase the distance between the new homes and
the existing homes to the north.
c. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
resulting from significant changes in topography. Granting the variance will allow the developer
to construct the four homes with minimal grade corrections.
d. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for all residential developments to be low density.
VARIANCE TO SIDEWALK
a. There are no special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land.
b. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The sidewalk is
necessary to enhance safety at the intersection of Minnetonka Blvd and Aquila Ave.
c. The variance is not necessary to correct inequities resulting from an extreme
physical hardship resulting from significant changes in topography.
d. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion
The proposed preliminary plat of Isabelle Estates is hereby approved and accepted by the City as
being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St.
Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
1. A variance is approved from section 26-152(b)(1) of the subdivision ordinance to reduce
the 75 foot lot width required to be maintained for at least 1/3 of the lot depth, provided,
however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and
Certification by the City Clerk.
2. A variance to not install a sidewalk along Aquila Ave. as required by section 26-
153(h)(1) of the subdivision ordinance is not approved.
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 15
-3-
3. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat.
4. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing the final plat.
5. A deed restriction shall be filed on lots 1 and 2 requiring the principal buildings to be
setback at least 50 feet from the rear property line.
6. The easement along the east property line of lot 4 shall be increased to 10 feet.
7. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of $1000 to insure that a Mylar copy of the final plat is provided.
8. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, relocating the crosswalk at
Minnetonka Blvd, constructing a six foot sidewalk along Minnetonka Blvd, landscaping,
and repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities.
9. A 10’ public trail easement shall be provided to the City, running the full length of the
property along Minnetonka Boulevard, prior to filing the final plat.
10. A subdivision variance is approved to eliminate the requirement that sidewalks or trails
be constructed along Aquila Avenue, with the condition that an amount equal to the cost
of construction of that same length of sidewalk be dedicated to the city for construction
of a sidewalk located elsewhere in the city.
11. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed by the developer along
Minnetonka Blvd and Aquila Ave. The sidewalk will include a connection to the
crosswalk across Minnetonka Blvd.
12. Developer shall work with Hennepin County to relocate the crosswalk across Minnetonka
Blvd to the east side of Aquila Avenue.
13. Lots 1 and 2 are to have two separate driveways, but share a common access onto
Minnetonka Blvd.
14. The driveways on Lots 1 and 2 are to have a built in turn around so vehicles leaving the
property are not required to back onto Minnetonka Blvd.
15. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of
this approval.
16. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the
above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 7, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 16
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 17
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 18
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 19
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Preliminary Plat with Variances Isabella Estates Page 20
Meeting Date: April 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Report: 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project – Project No. 2007-1100
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project
No. 2007-1100, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal State Aid (MSA) street system is a network of streets, designated by the City, which
are eligible for funding from the state for periodic maintenance and reconstruction. MSA streets are
typically those major streets which have higher volumes of traffic and are required to be constructed
to a higher standard.
During the past several years, staff identified the need to rehabilitate portions of the MSA street
system through the City’s Pavement Management Program. The Pavement Management Program
was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and
efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time. Using the City’s
pavement management software, staff obtains street condition ratings and monitors their
performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-effective treatments to
extend pavement life.
The MSA system is analyzed at the same time as the rest of the residential street network as part of
the overall pavement management program. Rather than maintaining MSA streets on an area
basis, like the residential street pavement management methodology, these streets are identified for
repair or reconstruction based on their current condition. Through the CIP process, MSA projects
are then programmed for major maintenance, rehabilitation or reconstruction.
ANALYSIS:
The following State Aid street segments identified for major maintenance, rehabilitation or
reconstruction efforts in 2008 are:
Street Start Point End Point Repair/Rehab. Type
West 36th Street State Highway 100 Beltline Blvd Mill and Overlay
West 16th Street Zarthan Avenue Park Place Blvd Mill and Overlay
Monterey Drive Beltline Blvd Park Commons Dr. Resurfacing
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Project Report – 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project No. 2007-1100
The West 36th Street project involves pavement resurfacing by a mill and overlay process where the
top 2 inches of pavement is ground off and then a new asphalt surface is paved. The project also
includes minor repairs on the concrete curb and sidewalk. The project is anticipated to last about
three to four weeks. The project will be constructed under traffic where motorist are guided through
the work zone during the periods of temporary lane closure.
West 16th Street is also programmed for mill and overlay work. However, this work will be
included in the Park Place Blvd Reconstruction Project to allow for better project coordination.
Council is scheduled to approve the Park Place Blvd Project at a later meeting date.
The resurfacing work on Monterey Drive is being delayed pending completion of the new entrance
to Park Nicollet’s Melrose Institute currently under construction. This work may be delayed until
the 2009 construction season. However, we are requesting that Monterey Drive be included as part
of this approval so that actual rehabilitation work can commence when timing becomes most
optimal.
The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for the West 36th Street project.
Because MSA funds will be used to pay for this project, it is necessary for Mn/DOT to review and
approve the plans prior to construction. The plans have been reviewed by Mn/DOT and we
anticipate final approval by mid-April. Mn/DOT approval must be obtained prior to opening of
bids to obtain MSA reimbursement for this work.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Notices were mailed or delivered to all adjacent property owners and/or tenants. The notice
provided a description of the proposed project work and an invitation for interested parties to
arrange a meeting with staff to review and discuss the construction plans. Prior to the start of
construction, letters will be mail to the adjacent property owners and tenants providing details of the
project schedule. The city’s website and the Park Perspective will also provide information on the
proposed project.
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule can
be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council April 7, 2008
• Advertise for bids Late April/Early May
• Bid Opening May 7, 2008
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract May 19, 2008
• Begin Construction Mid/Late June, 2008
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Subject: Project Report – 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project No. 2007-1100
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project will be funded by State Aid funds raise through the gas tax. The Engineer’s estimate for
the total cost of the project is $335,545 which includes 10% for contingencies and 8% for
engineering & administration.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Map of Project Location
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Subject: Project Report – 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project No. 2007-1100
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 2007-1100
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 2007-1100
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the 2008 MSA Street Improvement Program.
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. 2007-1100 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. 2007-1100 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 April 7, 2008
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of April 7, 2008 (Item No. 8b)
Subject: MSA Street Improvement Project No. 2007-1100 Page 5