HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/05/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
May 14, 2007
6:30 PM
Council Chambers
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Agenda Planning
2. 6:35 p.m. EDI Project Business Terms and TIF Application
3. 7:20 p.m. Highway 100 Update
4. 7:30 p.m. Solid Waste Program
5. 8:15 p.m. 2008 Budget
Written Reports
6. Excess Land Sale/Louisiana Avenue (Housing Authority)
7. DUKE Preliminary Development Agreement
8. Excess Land Multi-Lot Parcels Request for Development Proposal
9. Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
10. Sanitary Sewer Backup Policy Update
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD
(952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next study session agenda.
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the study session on May 29.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 1 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tentative Discussion Items - 6:30 p.m.
A. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
B. Proposed Office Building Anderson Builders – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff to discuss Anderson Builders’ proposed redevelopment project on Walker Street
(immediately east of Anderson’s existing building) and their request for TIF. Does the
Council support using TIF for this project? How does the Council wish to provide
financial assistance for other small redevelopment projects in the city?
C. Crime Free Rental License Residential Program – Inspections/Police (45 minutes).
Staff to return to Council with specifics on the proposed Crime Free Rental Licensing
program. Does Council want to direct staff to bring the draft ordinance for public
hearing/first reading in June?
Reports
• DUKE – Community Development
• Community Event Guidelines- Administrative Services
• Tobacco Ordinance – Administrative Services
• Anti-Graffiti Program - Police
7:50 p.m. End of Meeting
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 1
2. United Properties’ Application for Tax Increment
Financing to facilitate construction of a medical office
building for Park Nicollet’s Eating Disorders Clinic at
3515 Belt Line Boulevard.
Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
Staff wishes to review and receive feedback on the proposed sale of a portion of 3515 Belt Line
Blvd and 4860 35th Street West to United Properties (“the Redeveloper”). Staff also wishes to
discuss the Redeveloper’s application for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) assistance and proposed
Business Terms to facilitate development of a medical office building on the above site. Specific
items staff wishes to discuss include:
• Proposed site plan and building elevations.
• Proposed land use and zoning requirements.
• Property sale process.
• Amount and term of TIF assistance and other project costs.
• Proposed business terms.
• Compliance with the city’s TIF policy.
• Next steps.
In summary, United Properties’ TIF Application requests approximately $2.7 million in financial
assistance to facilitate the construction of a $29 million medical office building for Park
Nicollet’s Eating Disorders Institute (EDI) on the city’s Bass Lake Property located at the
northeast corner of Belt Line Boulevard and Monterey Drive (“subject property”).
As a reminder, Monday night’s discussion of the merits of the above project and its qualification
for tax increment finance assistance does not, in itself, obligate the EDA/Council to providing
the requested assistance.
Provided the EDA/Council wishes to pursue this project further staff would:
♦ Prepare a formal Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with the Redeveloper.
♦ Pursue various planning approvals.
♦ Begin the formal process of creating the proposed Soils TIF District.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 22, 2006 Study Session the EDA/City Council expressed its general support for
allowing United Properties to develop a medical office building on a portion of the subject
property. The facility would be leased to Park Nicollet for its nationally-recognized Eating
Disorders Institute. As a result, staff was directed to prepare a Preliminary Development
Agreement (PDA) with United Properties. This Agreement was subsequently approved by both
the EDA and City Council on June 19, 2006. In it, the parties were required, along with other
matters, to “complete refinements to the preliminary concept plan” and negotiate “toward a
mutually satisfactory redevelopment contract”.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 2
At the November 6, 2006 Study Session staff outlined preliminary site plans and business terms
of the proposed project and it was the consensus of the EDA/City Council that the plans and
terms were generally acceptable. Staff was then directed to negotiate further with United
Properties and develop a more specific list of business terms that would serve as the basis for a
formal Redevelopment Contract along with a more precise estimate of the financial assistance
required to facilitate the proposed project.
The Bass Lake Property located at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard was primarily conveyed to the city
by the State of Minnesota through a series of tax forfeitures between 1942 and 1960. It includes
nearly 7.3 acres including old right-of-way that will need to be vacated.
The property is currently the site of six tennis courts (leased on a short term basis to Benilde-St.
Margarets High School) and a “temporary off-leash dog park”. Despite these interim
recreational uses, the property is designated for “High Density Residential” use in the city’s
Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property was formerly the site of the former municipal Bass Lake Dump which was
in operation during the 1960s and early 1970s. During that time, approximately 70,000 cubic
yards of fill and waste material (primarily incinerator ash) was deposited at the site at a
maximum depth of 17.5 feet. This material was overlaid with between 2 and 12 feet of topsoil to
provide a protective cover.
In January 2007, a Response Action Plan (RAP) was submitted to the MPCA which outlined the
proposed environmental clean up activities and soil correction measures to be implemented
should the property be developed as proposed. This RAP was recently approved by the agency.
The subject property also has poor soil conditions due to the presence of peat and other unstable
material. Bedrock is 62 – 67 feet under the surface and any buildings and utilities would require
piling or structural support.
Due to the property’s close proximity to the Bass Lake Preserve, groundwater can be found 8 to
11.5 feet below the ground surface. The actual depth and location of the groundwater table
fluctuates seasonally and annually with variations in the amount of precipitation, surface run-off,
and infiltration.
SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
As envisioned, the city’s Bass Lake Property would be subdivided approximately in half. The
resulting northern parcel (the “Redevelopment Property”) would be conveyed to the EDA which
would, in turn, sell it to United Properties. United Properties would construct a high-quality
medical office building on the site (along with related structured and surface parking) and lease it
to Park Nicolett for its Eating Disorders Institute. The proposed site plan for the Bass Lake
Property (attached) depicts the following:
• 3-story, 67,400 square foot medical clinic with 30 beds located on the top floor
• 2-level, 130-stall, structured parking facility
• 70 surface parking stalls
• 2 driveway entrances with landscaped medians
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 3
• 1 service driveway
• A pedestrian trail that connects with the George Haun Trail
• 1 stormwater retention pond
• 2 tennis courts
• Space to accommodate a future building (possibly for civic use)
• Green space (capable of accommodating various amenities such as a possible
sculpture garden)
The remaining southern parcel (“the Remainder Parcel”) would be retained by the City for an
undetermined future use compatible with the proposed project. Suggested ideas for this 4-acre
Remainder Parcel include: sculpture garden, arts & culture center, multi-purpose conference
facility, library, or some combination of these or other similar civic uses as mentioned in the
recently-completed Vision St. Louis Park report. Should it later be determined that none of the
above uses are suitable or needed for the Remainder Parcel, it could potentially be sold for
private purposes such as for another office building.
It should also be noted that the proposed clinic parking ramp will be required to be expandable in
order to accommodate anticipated parking needs generated by a future building or uses
constructed on the Remainder Parcel.
PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES:
The Bass Lake Property is currently guided and zoned RC – Multiple Family. To enable the
proposed development, the property will need to be reguided and rezoned O – “Office”. Staff
recommends that the Remainder Parcel also be zoned Office so as to allow the city the greatest
flexibility as to its eventual use. A civic building would be allowed in an Office District.
This parcel was originally platted in 1911 prior to going tax forfeit. The property will require
replatting and the old streets, alleys and easements will require vacation before the city can sell
the property. The existing shape of this parcel reflects the old plat and has little or no
relationship to the current street layouts or use patterns in the area today. The property
boundaries are awkward and inconsistent with the city’s current standards or design. In
particular, the parcel has very sharp, acute angles at the northern boundary with the public open
space. It makes development of the north portion of the property challenging. With the recent
creation of a Parkland Zoning District this open space, north of the Bass Lake Property, became
zoned Park and Open Space.
The Redeveloper is requesting that a small portion of this open space property immediately to
the north (4860 35th Street West) be conveyed and combined with the subject property in order to
accommodate the proposed parking ramp, stormwater pond and to create a more reasonable
northern boundary line to the Redevelopment Property. The area needed is approximately a half
acre and partially in the flood zone. The conveyance of this property would be more than
compensated with the 1.3 acre area at the northeast corner of Monterey and Belt Line Blvd (part
of the city’s Remainder Property) that is planned to be set aside for green space and possibly a
sculpture garden. The conveyance of this small open space property would however be subject
to the public process outlined in the recently-adopted Sale of Park Land Ordinance.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 4
PROPOSED RELOCATION OF TENNIS COURTS:
The proposed EDI project will require the relocation of the six tennis courts currently located on
the Bass Lake Property. As a result, it is proposed that four replacement courts be constructed at
Aquila Park. The Parks and Recreation Department has requested that, if possible, two tennis
courts remain or be reconstructed elsewhere on the “Remainder Parcel” for neighborhood
recreational purposes. The Redeveloper has expressed a preference that these courts be relocated
in the southeast corner of that property.
Originally the six tennis courts on the Bass Lake Property were constructed under an agreement
with Benilde-St. Margarets High School for use by its boys and girls tennis teams. Under that
agreement, Benilde agreed to construct the courts on the city’s property and if the city needed the
courts removed prior to 2008 the city agreed to compensate Benilde under a sliding scale fee
formula. Given that there is one year remaining under the agreement, the city would be required
to compensate Benilde $7,500 for that one year.
As proposed, the city would add four tennis courts to the existing four courts at Aquila Park.
This would make a tennis area with eight courts for use by Benilde/St. Margaret’s and the city.
Constructing the new tennis courts at Aquila Park is acceptable to Benilde. The school has been
asked to assume 40% of the tennis courts’ construction costs and to share equally in the courts’
annual maintenance (which was not addressed under the previous agreement).
The proposed project will not disrupt Benilde’s tennis seasons. The Redeveloper does not plan
to break ground until August/September which will allow Benilde time to complete its spring
tennis season. The new courts at Aquila Park are tentatively scheduled to be completed by early
August which will accommodate the fall tennis season.
THE REDEVELOPER:
United Properties is a full-service commercial real estate company with more than 400
employees and 26.5 million square feet of office, industrial, retail and multi-family properties
under management. It offers a variety of real estate services, including brokerage, property
management, corporate real estate services, facility services, construction management,
development services and investment services. United Properties is based in the Twin Cities,
and provides real estate services worldwide. In 2004 United Properties was recognized as the
“Developer of the Year” by the National Association of Office and Industrial Properties
(NAIOP).
PROPERTY VALUE AND TAXES:
Currently, the Bass Lake Property is owned by the city and therefore is tax exempt. United
Properties wishes to purchase the northern portion of that property (approximately 3-4 acres).
The market value of this Redevelopment Property upon project completion is estimated at $14.8
million. It will also generate over $492,000 in total property taxes.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 5
PRO FORMA ANALYSIS:
As proposed, the city intends to sell the Redevelopment Property to United Properties for market
value. In order to do so, the Redevelopment Property needs to be developable which, due to the
contamination and poor soils, it currently is not. Thus, the city will need to fund measures that
correctly address the contamination and structurally support the proposed buildings. The
proposed source of these funds would come from a Soils Condition TIF District.
Approximately $2.7 million is needed to offset the extraordinary soil correction costs associated
with the entire subject property. More specifically, these costs include: handling and exporting
contaminated soils; installation of pilings and structural slabs; site grading, and lining the
stormwater pond. These costs would be considered extraordinary development costs.
According to the TIF Cash Flow Analysis provided by Ehlers & Associates, the proposed
project would generate approximately $2.1 million in tax increment over 21 years using a 6.5%
interest rate and no inflation. Since the proposed TIF district cannot generate sufficient revenue
to pay for the entirety of the soil correction costs, it is proposed that the difference be repaid
from the Land Sale Proceeds.
Twenty-one years is the maximum term of a Soils Condition TIF District. Typically, the city
prefers to retire TIF districts early in order to bring the captured parcels back unto the tax rolls
as soon as possible however, given the magnitude of the soil correction costs with this particular
development that is not possible. Tax increment from a Soils District can only be used for
contaminated soil correction activities.
SYNOPSIS OF REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Below are the general business terms, mutually negotiated between staff and United Properties
which are proposed to be incorporated into a future redevelopment contract for the subject
property.
Land Sale:
To facilitate the proposed project the city would replat and convey the subject property to the
EDA. The EDA would then convey the 3 to 4-acre “Redevelopment Property” to United
Properties for $12 per square foot or approximately $1.5 million. The City Assessor concurred
that the proposed sale price is in line with comparable, fair market, commercial property sales in
the city. The precise area of land to be sold to United Properties will be determined once the
new plat is prepared.
Minimum Improvements
The Redeveloper agrees to construct the proposed medical office building and related parking on
the Redevelopment Property. Upon completion it is expected to have a value of approximately
$14.8 million for tax purposes. Construction is estimated to start in the fall of 2007.
Lease to Park Nicollet:
The proposed medical office building is to be leased and operated by Park Nicollet Health
Services for its primary use as a world-class eating disorders clinic. Park Nicolett has committed
to leasing the facility for its Eating Disorders Institute for an initial 18-year term with two 5-year
options (lease extensions).
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 6
Environmental Costs:
The Redeveloper agrees to be responsible for implementing and paying for all environmental
response actions necessitated by the construction of the Minimum Improvements, as specified in
the MPCA-approved Response Action Plan and Contingency Plan as well as all related costs of
monitoring and reporting.
Tax Increment:
The EDA agrees to reimburse the Redeveloper for the $2.7 million in soil correction costs from a
combination of tax increment and the Land Sale Proceeds. The tax increment would be derived
from the establishment of a Soils Condition TIF District. The TIF note would be structured on
the following basis:
Issue total: Estimated $2.1 million
Term: 21 years
Interest Rate: 6.5 % or actual rate of construction financing
Admin Fee: 5%
Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
The tax increment assistance would initially be provided through a Pay-As-You-Go TIF Note to
United Properties. The city will likely be asked to issue a tax exempt take out bond when
construction is complete – the same arrangement as was used with Dunbar Development for the
Hoigaard Village project.
To the extent the tax increment does not cover all the soil correction costs (estimated at
$600,000) the EDA will reimburse the Redeveloper for these remaining costs out of the Land
Sale Proceeds.
Shared Site Development Costs:
Redeveloper and the City/EDA agree to evenly split site improvement costs that serve both clinic
and civic uses. These include:
• The two driveways and attached surface parking.
• Driveway landscaping.
• Driveway lighting.
• Sidewalks
The EDA will utilize Land Sale Proceeds to pay for its portion of these expenses. The estimated
city share of these items is $169,500.
City/EDA Site Development Costs:
The Redeveloper agrees to provide an easement to the city on its property for a pedestrian trail
connection to the adjacent George Haun trail. The city agrees to construct and pay for the trail
connection. The estimated cost is $51,500.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 7
The EDA agrees to reimburse the Redeveloper for the added costs of making the parking
structure expandable to three levels in the future. In turn, public parking will be allowed in the
surface stalls and parking ramp during evenings and weekends as well as during weekdays, to the
extent it does not interfere with the clinic’s operations. The estimated cost to make the ramp
expandable is yet to be finalized but is projected to be approximately $385,000.
The EDA agrees to pay for relocating and constructing four tennis courts at Aquila Park and two
tennis courts on the city’s Remainder Parcel.
The EDA agrees to pay for burying the overhead electric lines on the city’s Remainder Parcel.
Altogether, the city’s total site development costs will equal approximately $1 million. The
EDA will utilize Land Sale Proceeds to pay for all these expenses.
Look Back Provision:
As with other recent redevelopment projects with which the EDA has been involved, United
Properties agrees to the inclusion of a "look back" provision in the redevelopment contract. Such
a provision would enable the EDA to review United Properties' development costs and gross
margins after the development is sold to third parties. Use of any excess profit will be further
refined and brought back as part of the approval of the Redevelopment Agreement.
PROPOSED TIF DISTRICT SUMMARY:
The Bass Lake Property is located within the city’s Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and the
Excelsior Boulevard TIF District. The subject property would need to be decertified from the
current Excelsior Boulevard TIF District and a new Soils Condition District would need to be
created.
CONFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS UNDER THE CITY’S TIF POLICY:
The proposed project meets the following city objective for the use of TIF:
• Remove blight and/or encourage redevelopment in the commercial and industrial
areas of the city in order to encourage high quality development or redevelopment
and private reinvestment in those areas.
In addition to meeting nearly all the “Minimum Qualifications” for using TIF, the proposed
project meets the following “Desired Qualifications” as outlined in the TIF Policy:
• It creates a higher ratio of property taxes paid before and after redevelopment and
provides a significant increase in tax base.
• The Redeveloper is able to provide evidence which supports the market
potential/demand for the proposed project.
• It redevelops a partially underutilized area.
• The Redeveloper is able to demonstrate that the proposed project plan is not
financially feasible “but-for” the use of tax increment financing.
• It will not place extraordinary demands on city services.
• It cleans up an existing contaminated site.
• It meets “good public policy criteria” such as: high quality architectural design,
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 8
provides significant improvement to surrounding land uses, provides significant
retained/new employment, and provides highest and best desired use for the property.
• The Redeveloper is able to demonstrate past general development capability as well
as specific capability in the type and size of development proposed.
In addition to the above, the proposed project would have the following additional economic and
social benefits for the community:
1. The city would gain a site fully prepared for a possible future civic use. Such a site could
fulfill some of the dreams expressed in the city’s recently completed Visioning process.
The site would have a driveway entry with boulevard landscaping and lighting, surface
parking, sidewalks, and a stormwater retention pond. The adjacent parking ramp would
be designed so that it could be expanded in anticipation of future public parking needs.
2. The city would obtain a needed pedestrian connection to the George Haun Trail.
3. The city would receive four new tennis courts at Aquila Park and two rebuilt tennis
courts in the Wolfe Park neighborhood.
4. The public would gain parking access to the surface stalls and parking ramp during
evenings and weekends. This will be beneficial when overflow parking is needed at the
adjacent Rec Center.
5. The new medical clinic would enable St. Louis Park’s largest employer to expand thus
allowing it to further contribute to the city’s economic vitality.
6. Park Nicollet would retain several medical disciplines from the existing clinic and the
hospital and consolidate them into a new facility thus freeing up additional space at those
facilities for further expansion opportunities.
7. The new facility would retain and create a total of approximately 220 quality jobs in the
community.
8. The facility would further enhance St. Louis Park’s reputation as a strategic location for
the medical industry.
9. The EDI is proposed to be a “world class” center for treating eating disorders and as such
the St. Louis Park–based facility would receive ongoing national if not, international,
recognition.
10. The clinic would attract patients and their families from the Midwest (primarily) and
beyond. These visitors will be patronizing local hotels, restaurants and stores. This will,
no doubt, economically benefit several retail areas throughout the city particularly those
in close proximity.
11. The new facility would enable Park Nicollet to double the number of patients it treats for
eating disorders – a serious, life-threatening, illness. Currently, Park Nicollet treats about
500 patients a year. The new clinic is expected to eventually treat 1,500 patients a year.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 2 - United Properties TIF Application for EDI
Page 9
12. Consolidating Park Nicollet’s EDI in St. Louis Park is consistent with the city’s
commitment to helping young people and would further enhance St. Louis Park’s
national reputation as a “Children First” community.
GRADING UNDER THE CITY’S TIF REPORT CARD:
United Properties’ TIF Application was graded according to the factors included the “Report
Card” for evaluating Commercial Redevelopment Projects within the city’s TIF Policy. Upon
calculation of the various factors and bonus points, the proposed EDI project received a final
grade of “A” or “Excellent” according to the scale provided within the Report Card. To see how
each factor was scored please see the attached TIF Report Card.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S BUISNESS SUBSIDY POLICY:
Any proposed TIF assistance provided the subject project would be exempt from state business
subsidy requirements as it relates to contaminated property (Section 116J.552, subdivision 3,).
Therefore, no public subsidy hearing is required; however, it is still subject to a modified
reporting requirement.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff would like to receive feedback on the proposed project in general as well as the site plan
and Business Terms in particular. If the EDA/Council is interested in moving forward on the
proposed project as outlined, staff would initiate some of the outlined planning approvals and
have the Business Terms incorporated into a formal Redevelopment Contract.
Attachments: Site Plan (Supplement)
Preliminary Building Elevations (Supplement)
TIF Report Card (Supplement)
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, EDA Executive Deputy Director, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project
Page 1
3. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide the City Council a brief oral update on the progress
of this project and to request the Council reconsider beginning a traffic study at this time as
described at the April 9 Study Session.
BACKGROUND:
On April 9th staff proposed the need to conduct a study to understand what neighborhood traffic
patterns and volumes may result depending upon underpass locations offered by Mn/DOT. Such
a study would cost approximately $60,000 and would determine at a system level the needs for
local arterials / collectors and for neighborhood connectivity. Included in this would be the
identification, discussion, and evaluation of the following:
• opportunities and constraints
• community assets/values
• minor arterial routing plans
• transit, pedestrian and bicycle needs
Traffic changes and volumes would be projected for local arterials / collectors looking at
neighborhood connectivity. A study like this will take several months to complete and is
expected to provide traffic information to be used in answering the following questions:
1. Where does the City desire an underpass under Hwy 100 north of Minnetonka Blvd?
2. Where does the City desire the Southbound Hwy 100 on-ramp to be located?
3. What possible traffic implications in the area neighborhoods may be expected in
relation to the respective underpass options?
4. To what extent will planned LRT affect the regional highways and local street
facilities in the future? Will regional State and County highways and the local
transportation system work in conjunction with the planned Southwest LRT?
DISCUSSION:
Council expressed a concern over the need for this work now when state funding for this project
is not specifically available at this time. Council also expressed concern over unnecessarily
starting a public involvement process if the project is delayed beyond 2014. Staff believes it is
necessary to begin this work as soon as reasonably possible as it will take quite some time to do
this type of study. In addition, there is no need to begin a public involvement process at this
time; actually, that effort should wait until the funding / scheduling issue has been resolved and
relevant information regarding underpass options and impacts is available. And, the first part of
this study will be to obtain base information regarding traffic volume changes and shifts in usage
of the existing system since the Hwy 100 Interim Project was completed. This base work will be
needed to aid in our comprehensive planning process even if the Hwy 100 project ultimately
ends up being delayed for any reason.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 3 - Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project
Page 2
NEXT STEPS:
To provide neighborhood traffic information to aid Council in considering Mn/DOT design
options, a study as described above should be conducted. In that regard, the following general
steps have been identified:
1. Determine Hennepin County role and respective cost participation in this effort (April -
June)
2. Retain a consultant for this proposed study (May)
3. Perform the proposed study (June - October)
4. Evaluate the project funding and scheduling situation (May - June)
5. Develop a public involvement plan / process to consider Mn/DOT options assuming
project funds become available (June - July)
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 1
4. Solid Waste Program Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council program options to consider for increasing
recycling and improving environmental stewardship and to discuss if Council is interested in
renegotiating a contract (extending the existing collection contract) with Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI).
BACKGROUND:
At the March 12, 2007 study session, staff provided Council with a brief overview of the process
undertaken to develop and implement the existing contract including the creation of the purpose,
goals and objectives which are now part of the current residential solid waste program. Also
discussed were the changes made to the program to move it to a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) refuse
collection program.
The major focus of the discussion at the study session meeting was how to enhance the existing
recycling program as well as to expand recycling to the entire community. Some of the items
discussed and suggested program changes included:
Getting existing residential program customers to recycle more
Revision of PAYT rates to better promote our Reduce…Re-use…Recycle philosophy
Use of larger, taller and/or covered recycling bins to prevent litter
Reinstatement of the recycling credit
Increase recycling at high density residential developments
Provide recycling in all parks
Expansion of recycling to all properties citywide
POSSIBLE PROGRAM CHANGES:
Based on the March Study Session discussion, staff has focused its efforts on developing options that
Council may wish to consider for increasing recycling and improving environmental stewardship in
the city. To do this staff has tried to adhere to our motto of Reduce…Re-use… and Recycle and
program goals of high quality service, environmental stewardship, and cost-effective service. To
make the current program and options easier to review and consider, staff has created Attachment A,
a summary of our current program components, and Attachment B, a listing of possible program
changes for Council to consider. The bolded options on Attachment B are options recommended by
staff (If we move ahead with staff recommendations, further investigation may be needed prior to
implementation).
Currently the City’s solid waste program includes refuse and recycling collection for the
approximately 12,200 single-family to 4-unit residential properties. Multi-family high density
properties are currently required by the City to provide for recycling; however, there is no City
requirement for commercial/industrial properties to recycle. For high density and commercial /
industrial properties that are required to recycle under city, county, and state law, there is no
inspection or enforcement to ensure it is actually occurring. In summary, there are approximately
7,000 high-density residential units and 2,000 commercial/industrial properties in St. Louis Park,
with different recycling requirements and varying levels of recycling; as such, staff feels there is a
real opportunity to increase recycling in the City although not without effort.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 2
Staff has discussed this situation with the City Attorney and has found:
• The City can offer collection services for refuse and / or recycling for any property in the
city, if we desire
• The City can establish organized collection of refuse and / or recycling for every
property in the city, if we desire
Based on this authority, staff has determined the City has several options in considering program
changes aimed at significantly increasing recycling citywide:
• Increase the education, inspection, and enforcement of existing recycling requirements
• Expand the collection of refuse and / or recycling by offering city collection services to
high density residential and commercial/industrial properties
• Expand organized collection of refuse and / or recycling to high density residential and
commercial/industrial properties
Any of these possible program changes will create some new and unique challenges including
language and cultural issues as well as increased staff demands.
Besides the possibilities identified above, staff has also identified other changes aimed at providing
incentives to current property owners to increase recycling. Those changes are also listed on
Attachment B.
CONTRACT EXTENSION (RENEGOTIATION) REQUEST:
Staff recently met with WMI representatives to discuss our existing program and to obtain their
suggestions / input on how we might expand recycling as well as make the City more “green”. At
that meeting WMI representatives expressed their desire to renegotiate (essentially extend) the
existing contract. WMI staff attended the March study session and understands that some Council
members feel the best way to implement a new contract is through a requesting of proposals.
However, WMI representatives feel confident they can make a compelling case to Council that a 3 to
5 year contract extension may be in the City’s best interest. They have requested the opportunity to
present their case for this to the Council.
POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. What, if any, program / service changes should be considered from those identified on
Exhibit B?
2. What, if any, other program / service changes should be considered?
3. Is Council interested in discussing with WMI the benefits of extending or renegotiating a
contract vs. requesting proposals for a new contract?
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the answers provided to the policy questions, staff will develop more specific details for
each of the program / service changes identified by Council.
Attachments: Attachment “A” - Existing Program
Attachment “B” - Possible Program Changes
Attachment “C” - Solid Waste Program Annual Report for 2006
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 3
Attachment “A”
EXISTING PROGRAM
(Residential - single family to 4-plex)
Refuse/Garbage
Weekly garbage collection
Eight garbage service level options
No charge for changing service level
Extra refuse stickers for bagged household garbage that doesn’t fit completely within the cart with the lid
closed
All items set out by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
Containers back in storage within 24 hours after being set out
Storage of garbage containers inside, or outside 4 feet from interior lot lines
Extended absence credit for five or more consecutive weeks
Recycling
Weekly recycling collection
2-sort collection (paper & containers)
Free & unlimited number of recycling bins (delivered weekly)
Cardboard must be cut into 3’x3’ and tied in bundles
All items set out by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
Containers back in storage within 24 hours after being set out
Storage of recycling bins must be indoors
Yard Waste/Compost
Weekly yard waste collection April through November, and in January for two weeks
Yard waste credit option ($3/quarter) for not putting grass clippings out for collection
All items set out by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
Collection in properly marked containers or bags
Twigs/branches must be less than 3” in diameter and 4’ in length and tied in bundles
Other Waste
Semi-weekly bulk & appliance collection for a fee
Semi-weekly electronic collection for a fee
Semi-weekly florescent collection for a fee
City Hall collection point for household batteries
Clean Up Day at MSC (Spring & Fall)
Education & Customer Service
Solid waste collection customer service phone staff from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and some Saturdays by Contractor
Educational tags left by collection drivers
Educational tags left for residents regarding blocking of city right-of-way by city staff
Educational letters to residents by city staff
Educational talks at schools by city staff
Education provided at events by city staff & Contractor
Education provided in various media to residents by city staff
Recyclopedia provided to all residents and businesses by city staff
Green Business Program
Get Caught Recycling Award Program for residents
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 4
Attachment “B”
POSSIBLE PROGRAM CHANGES
REFUSE/GARBAGE
Possible modifications to the Pay-As-You Throw (PAYT) Program
Provide a smaller service level (30 gallon semi-weekly)
Change PAYT rates to enhance incentive to reduce waste
Possible modifications to Reduce Litter
Provide for waste collection at all bus stops/shelters
Provide recycling containers with lids
RECYCLING
Possible modifications to the Residential Program (single family – 4 plex)
Create a mandatory ordinance requiring all single family residences to recycle
Increase the “Get Caught Recycling Award”
Single sort collection with carts
Reinstatement of the recycling credit
Possible modifications to the Multi-family Dwellings (MFD - residential larger that 4-plex) Program
Expand the recycling education program for MFD
Enforce recycling ordinance/state law requiring MFD owners to offer recycling
Require larger recycling areas at MFD’s
Offer City recycling collection services under city contract
Require City recycling collection services under city contract
Create financial penalty to MFD for not recycling
Possible modifications to the Commercial/Industrial Program:
Enhance Green Business recycling education program for all commercial/industrial
Educate businesses regarding the benefits of organics recycling
Encourage or require businesses to do organics recycling
Provide for recycling at all bus stops/shelters
Offer City recycling collection services under city contract
Require City recycling collection services under city contract
Create financial penalty to commercial/industrial for not recycling
Encourage businesses to donate food and other items to local charities
YARD WASTE / COMPOST
Possible modifications to the current Program
Eliminate use of plastic yard waste bags
Allow single family residential properties to compost yard waste on site
Allow single family residential properties to compost organics on site
Offer organics collection under city contract
Require organics collection under city contract
Provide a drop-off site for leaves and brush
OTHER WASTE / “GREEN” INITIATIVES
Possible modifications to the current Program
Ban retail plastic bag use within the city (i.e. grocery & retail stores)
Provide curbside pickup for household hazardous waste
Provide local household hazardous waste drop off sites
Provide free bulk & appliance curbside collection with city collection contract
EDUCATION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
No changes identified at this time
Items in bold are staff recommended changes. (If we move ahead with staff recommendations, further
investigation may be needed prior to implementation)
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 5
Attachment “C”
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
FROM: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
DATE: April 1, 2007
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Program Annual Report for 2006
Purpose of Report
This report summarizes the activities of the Residential Solid Waste Program for 2006.
Program Purpose
To provide a Solid Waste service responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a vital community.
Goals: High Quality Service, Environmental Stewardship, Cost Effective Services, Effective
Communication, and the Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry.
Program Description
The City of St. Louis Park has a volume based pay-as-you-throw program designed to encourage
recycling and waste reduction.
Customers / Level of Service
We currently have 12, 218 households. There are eight levels of service and three cart sizes.
Residents are free to choose the service level and cart sizes that best fit their needs.
Service Level
2004
Customers
2005
Customers
2006
Customers
Change since
2005
30 gallons 4,089 4,063 4,049 .3% decrease
60 gallons 5,773 5,728 5,702 .4% decrease
90 gallons 1,955 1,987 2,010 1% increase
120-180 gallons 381 404 422 4% increase
270 gallons 12 22 20 9% decrease
360 gallons 9 14 15 7% increase
450 gallons 0 0 0 No change
540 gallons 1 0 0 No change
Average Total
Customers
12,220 12,219 12,218
Collection
In 2006 St. Louis Park residents recycled less and threw away less than in 2005. Staff provides
public information and education through various media to encourage waste reduction and
recycling. Although garbage has not decreased proportionally to recycling, this may be
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 6
indicative of several things: residents choosing products with less packaging; choosing not to
participate in the recycling program; or purchasing fewer products.
Yard waste disposal has declined over the past three years. It decreased by 352 tons from 2004
to 2005 and by 235 tons from 2005 to 2006. The amount of yard waste depends upon the
weather, of course as well as the residents’ use of the yard waste program. The program has
helped increase environmental awareness among residents, encouraging many to mulch their
grass clippings and receive a credit for doing so. City and Waste Management staff did conduct
periodic checks to ensure that those with reduced service level were not getting grass clippings
collected.
See the attached graphs for details on solid waste tonnages.
Program 2004
Tons
2005
Tons
2006
Tons
Comments
Recycling 4,253 4,347 4,166 4% decrease from 2005 to 2006
Garbage 8,975 9,100 9,000 1% decrease from 2005 to 2006
Yard Waste 3,998 3,646 3,411 6% decrease from 2005 to 2006
Bulk Items * 154 141 109 22% decrease in bulk tonnage
2004
Units
2005
Units
2006
Units
* Only items collected by WM.Includes
appliances & bulk items collected at the Spring
& Fall Clean Up Events.
Appliances ** 530 554 508 ** Only items collected by WM.
Performance Indicators
Staff and City Council have developed solid waste performance indicators which measure
quality, cost and responsiveness for program and service delivery in order to better monitor the
contractor and better evaluate the Solid Waste Program goals. The continual monitoring,
evaluation and responsiveness to residents should ultimately increase the level of resident
satisfaction with the solid waste program. The Performance Indicators attachment shows the
tracking of specific indicators for the program. Below are details of additional performance
indicators for the program and for customer service.
1. 2006 Solid Waste Residential Collection Program Survey: In general, the majority of the
2006 survey participants is satisfied with the pay-as-you throw program and believes the
program changes to the pay-as-you -throw program are an improvement from the previous
program. More education is needed about plastic recycling, recycling in general, and
Hennepin County’s program for hazardous materials collection (fluorescent bulbs,
electronics, etc.). Some survey participants would like a more convenient clean up day,
whether that means curbside collection, weekday collection, more frequent clean up days,
lower rates or even free. Some survey participants would like to leave bulk items and
appliances at the curb year-round and have them collected without arranging a collection nor
paying a fee (similar to the Minneapolis program), which is directly the opposite of what the
pay-as-you throw program promotes. A few survey participants have requested more
recycling options such as organics collection and a community-wide approach of a zero
waste goal.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 7
2. Routine Inspections: Public Works and Waste Management staff conduct monthly
inspections covering one collection day per month and award the “Get Caught Recycling
Award” for that month. During these inspections issues relating to both resident practices
and contractor performance are monitored and recorded. The notes and observances of these
inspections show that program issues at the curb on collection day have greatly reduced since
the program changes. The change to carts especially has made a difference in litter and
attraction of vermin.
3. Customer Service Database Call Log: Resident calls received by both Waste Management
and Public Works are logged into a database. Summaries of these calls as well as any
outstanding issues are reviewed weekly by the City and Waste Management, as well as
discussed at the monthly quality assurance meetings.
*Same Day Time Issues are residents calling in a missed pickup before the truck has been
there or having a missed pickup be collected within the contract parameters.
**Includes requests for recycle bins, additional carts, changes as well as cart damage and
complaints.
The program issue calls continue to be lower each year and are 19.5% lower in 2006
compared to 2005. However considering we have approximately 12,220 customers that
receive two or more collections each week (including refuse, recycling, and even yard waste
for most of the year), the number of calls is extremely low for both years.
4. Educational Tags: When an issue is noted by a Waste Management driver, the driver
leaves a tag and on a weekly basis provides the Public Works staff with a report that
identifies the issue, address and date. City staff sends the resident an educational letter
after two tags within a four week period for similar issues. There were 1,345 tags issued
in 2006. The five major issues were lack of “extra refuse” stickers, bulk items not called
in for pick up, overfilled carts, boxes not cut and bundled and garbage in the yard waste.
The list below contains a comparison of the most frequently tagged issues in 2005 and 2006.
Education Tag Issues 2005 2006
Overfilled cart 776 170
Type of Call 2004 2005 2006
Non-Compliant Missed Pickups 0 1 0
Compliant Missed Pickups & Same Day Time Issues* 534 583 498
Container Issues** 239** 163** 71
Litter 35 18 32
Property Damage 29 19 30
Total Program Related Calls (Total of Calls Above) 837 784 631
Public Information 4,397 4,160 3,540
Total Calls in Customer Service Database 5,234 4,944 4,171
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 8
Boxes cut & bundled 450 119
Stickers 430 285
Other 171 95
Cart in street 129 0
Bulk 102 167
Food packaging 96 1
Plastic bags, cups, etc. 80 7
Garbage in yard waste 58 100
Other 457 254
TOTAL 2,749 1,198
5. Recycling Participation: Recycling participation is at 71%, up from 69% in 2005, but still
down from 73% in 2004. Recycling participation is the percentage of households who
actually set out recyclables (71%) in a given period of time (October is measured by the
County annually) as compared to the total number of households in the program (100%).
2004 is the base year used by Hennepin County in the SCORE funding comparison. With
our new program changes just going into effect in 2004, we did a lot of public education that
year (mass mailings, public meetings, cart choices, etc.), which naturally raised the recycling
participation rate to 73%.
We have to work hard on education each year to meet our SCORE grant agreement with
Hennepin County. We are required in that SCORE agreement to “equal or surpass the 2004
base year figure (of 73%).”
RECYCLING PARTICIPATION
2006 71%
2005 69%
2004 73%
2003 59%
6. Yard Waste Credits: Sixty-five percent of the city’s households have the “No Grass
Clippings” yard waste option. The City continues to promote yard waste composting by
residents. Again in 2007 Waste Management staff will be inspecting specific areas
frequently to ensure that households receiving the credit are not putting out grass clippings
for collection.
Program Concerns
The main concerns in 2006 (as it was in 2005) involved cart storage location during non-
collection times, the overfilling of carts, and the placement of carts in the right-of-way by
residents on collection day. Staff provides education information on cart and bin storage and
collection in a variety of ways including: new resident packets; on the web site; in the Park
Perspective; at neighborhood meetings; in neighborhood newsletters; by direct mail; and by
placement of educational tags by the hauler. This includes education of staff in other divisions
and departments to identify problem areas in need of education.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 9
1. Cart Storage Location during Non-Collection: There are residents who leave their carts in
unacceptable locations during non-collection days: front lawns, driveways, streets, alleys,
sidewalks, front of houses and other locations. In some of these cases neighbors get tired of
this and call to report. Currently staff responds to complaints but is not out actively looking
for violators. Inspections staff also notifies Public Works of problems from phone calls,
observations or inspections. Public Works staff then sends the household a letter and
educational materials regarding storage of the carts. When notified, staff works with these
residents to resolve the issue. Information on proper storage location has been published in
the Park Perspective and on the city web site.
2. Overfilled Carts: Overfilled carts are in direct conflict with the pay-as-you-throw program
philosophy and contribute to litter and vermin problems. Overfilled carts tagged by the
haulers are not collected. The campaign to educate residents about overfilled carts began in
February, 2004. Each winter the overfilled carts become an issue again. Staff continues to
work with the hauler to increase education about overfilled carts.
3. Placement of Carts in the Right-of-Way during Collection. Some residents continue to
place carts in the alley, street, and sidewalk for collection which is not appropriate. This
causes both vehicle and pedestrian issues and becomes a bigger problem during the winter
months during snow plowing. During the winter, a snow tag is left by city staff on the carts
to inform residents that carts should not be placed in the right-of-way. WM drivers place
educational tags on the carts and repeat violators receive a letter from the City. Citywide
education is done through the neighborhood associations and in the Park Perspective.
Program Education: Program education is a joint effort by Waste Management and the City.
Examples of what was done in 2006 are as follows:
1. Education by Waste Management: The contract requires the hauler to facilitate ongoing
communication with residents, host an annual open house for all residents (or other event),
offer tours of its facilities, and provide bi-monthly education. Waste Management staff
meets with Public Works staff at least monthly, often more frequently, to develop
educational materials and program for residents and to address issues. In 2006 Waste
Management sponsored our Earth and Arbor Day Event in St. Louis Park. Waste
Management developed and distributed three (spring, fall and winter) newsletters to our
residents as well as provided bi-monthly public service announcements in the Sun Sailor,
working with Public Works staff on all education.
2. Education by City: The Recyclopedia was published and distributed in December of 2005
for use in 2006 through 2007. The Recyclopedia is a guide to reduce, reuse, recycle and
safely dispose of household and business materials. The City of St. Louis Park works with
Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Plymouth and the West Hennepin Recycling
Commission to produce this guide for our residents and businesses. The guide is produced
every two years. This is the second time St. Louis Park has participated in this project. The
Recyclopedia will be produced again in late 2007.
In 2006, staff worked to increase the public education and improve communications with
residents. Staff has provided education through the Park Perspective, individual mailings as
requested, visiting with residents, public information meetings, the Home Remodeling Show,
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 10
Parktacular, Fire Department Open House, Clean Up Days, Earth & Arbor Day Celebration,
Kids’ Eco Fair, neighborhood meetings, service clubs and schools, cable television channel
and on the web site.
Staff provides City cable channel with public service announcements and short public service
announcements to address recycling, stormwater, litter and environmental footprint issues.
The announcements are shown periodically on the City cable channel.
The Get Caught Recycling Award Program began in late 2003 with the new contract. Each
month one randomly-selected household wins a monthly prize ($25 gift certificate, $20 Blue
Sky Guide coupon book and more). The award is given on a different collection day each
month. To win the chosen household must have their recycling out for collection by 7:00
a.m. and must not have any non-recyclables in the bin. The recipient receives a letter of
congratulations. The recipient responds to arrange delivery of the award. The “Get Caught
Recycling” award winners were listed quarterly in the Park Perspective. The name (not
address) of the monthly winner is listed on the web site (under “What’s New”). The program
is also featured on the Home page of the new web site under the “spotlight” section.
In 2006 educational efforts were focused on sustainability, reducing waste, increasing
recycling, and mixed paper recycling (a Green Guardian initiative). Future educational
efforts will focus on recycling for businesses and high density residential communities.
In 2006 we developed a new event: The Kids’ Eco Fair is held during Parktacular and
involves Public Works, Parks, and Nature Center staff and was sponsored in part by a grant
from the Community Foundation. Children planted flowers in pots to take home, learned to
design and helped plant a rain garden, fished in Wolfe Lake, met the pond critters and
reptiles, participated in a butterfly release and enjoyed Tricia & the Toonies. Adults learned
about our watersheds, rain gardens, recycling and more.
Clean Up Day: The Fourth Annual Spring Clean Up Day was held Saturday, June 10, 2006 at
the Municipal Service Center from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Four hundred thirty-six vehicles came
to the Municipal Service Center to drop off materials. Five city employees worked with
numerous Waste Management employees to make the event a success. The event continues to
collect fewer appliances, tires, construction debris and garbage (bulk items) each year.
Hennepin County holds an annual Household Hazardous Waste Drop Off event in St. Louis Park
simultaneously with our June Clean Up Day. Many of the same residents participate in both
events. In 2006 the city hosted the County’s event for the first time at the Louisiana Oaks Park
parking lot. This proved to be a more visible area and safer for traffic. The County has asked to
use the location again in 2007.
We continued to receive requests via survey and independently for a fall clean up in addition to
the June event. So in 2006 we held the first Fall Clean Up Day on Saturday, October 14 from
8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Only 138 vehicles came to the MSC to drop off materials. We collected
38 appliances and 16 tons (collectively) of all other material. Discussion continues on whether
to include yard waste and brush in the fall collection as requested by residents.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 11
Contract Status: The current contract with Waste Management started October 1, 2003 and
runs through September 30, 2008. Under the contract, the penalties for poor customer related
performance by the contractor were greatly increased. Penalties include $2,500 for a
noncompliant missed pickup that is not completed within the contract parameters, or $5,000 for a
noncompliant missed area. There were no noncompliant missed pickups in 2006.
Finances: During 2006 the City spent $1,884,492 for collection and disposal services with total
program costs of $2,363,732. Total revenue in 2006 was $1,928,283. Hennepin County garbage
disposal charges were raised in 2005 to $41.85 per ton and dropped in April 2006 to $34 per ton.
County disposal charges will be raised again in 2007.
The Refuse Fund balance at the end of 2006 is estimated to be $1,932,304, which reflects a total
loss of $435,450 during 2006 and a drop of 18% from the 2005 total. The Finance Department
has recommended maintaining a minimum fund balance of $482,071 (three months of revenue).
With the pay-as-you throw program, new rates were established to cover costs so the
expenditures didn’t continue to be subsidized by the Solid Waste Fund. The 2006 fund
projections by the Finance Department anticipate that the fund balance will continue to be drawn
down until 2012 at which time the revenues will cover the expenditures. See the attached graphs
for fund balance details.
Future Initiatives
The ultimate goal of the program changes is to increase St. Louis Park’s recycling, reduce refuse
and yard waste collected, and reduce service issues.
• Monitor and evaluate the solid waste program
• Increase recycling according to Hennepin County requirements
• Monitor and evaluate hauler performance
• Increase multi-family recycling and reduction of waste
• Educate businesses about recycling, waste reduction & sustainability
• 2007 Resident Survey regarding solid waste customer service
Attachments:
• Solid Waste Tonnage History Chart (1997-2006)
• Comparison of Recycling Tons Collected in 2006 to Tons Collected in 2004 by Month
• Refuse Fund Balance Chart (1993-2013)
• Performance Indicators (Supplement)
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 12
Solid Waste Tonnage History, 1997-2006Points indicate total tons collected in one year.02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,0001997199819992000200120022003200420052006YearsTonsREFUSERECYCLINGYARD WASTE
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 13
Recycling Tonnage 2006 Compared to Base Year 20040100200300400500JanuaryFebruaryMarchApril MayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberMonthsTons Collected20042006
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 4 - Solid Waste Program
Page 14
Refuse Fund Balance($1,000,000)$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Actual 1993 - 2006 Projected 2007 - 2013DollarsExpensesRevenuesFund BalanceMinimum Recommended Balance
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 5 - 2008 Budget
Page 1
5. 2008 Budget Finance
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide information on the overall financial status of our
funds and review data as it relates to long range financial planning for the city. We also want to
talk about the 2008 budget process, including incorporation and presentation of Vision-related
items.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff would like to leave the discussion with direction in the following areas:
• What are the expectations of the Council on the levy for 2008?
• Is the presentation format and level of detail meeting City Council member needs?
• Understanding that there will be some Vision-related recommendations in the upcoming
process.
BACKGROUND:
Current Economic Conditions
We do not expect any major changes to city finances from the legislature. In fact, a potential
partial restoration of St. Louis Park’s Local Government Aid (LGA) could still happen during
this session. We, as a staff, are not planning on any LGA, but it will be a nice surprise if we do
see some aid for next year.
While realtors nationally are pessimistic about housing prices, we still continue to see modest
positive growth in our home sales. The office/commercial property market continues to be very
solid, so we should see tax capacity growth for the 2008 budget cycle.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicates that inflation remains moderate at this time. The
index has been hovering around 3% for some time.
Energy prices remain volatile, but the current increases seem to be following the typical seasonal
pattern that we have seen over the past several years.
Tax Levy
The city implemented the second phase tax levy increase for debt service on our 2005A GO
bonds in 2007. With that change, we are at a stable level for the next several years. Our current
capital plan does not anticipate any new tax-supported debt service until we issue bonds for fire
station construction.
Debt Service
Bond Issue 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1999A GO Impr. Bonds 326,500 331,200 329,700 332,900 340,400
2003A GO Impr. Bonds 513,900 514,400 513,600 517,400 519,400 520,100
2005A GO Bonds 269,800 496,200 494,000 496,700 498,900 495,200
Total Debt Service 1,110,200 1,341,800 1,337,300 1,347,000 1,358,700 1,015,300
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 5 - 2008 Budget
Page 2
We continue to implement the PERA pension increases. The employer contributions will
increase from 6.25% currently to 6.5% in January, 2008, 6.75% in January, 2009 and 7% in
January, 2010 for the Coordinated Plan. For the Police & Fire Fund, the increases are from
11.7% currently to 12.9% in January, 2008, and 14.1% in January, 2009.
As discussed last year, staff intends to equalize the cafeteria benefit contributions for all
employee groups in 2008. We anticipate only a modest increase in the total monthly
contribution per employee.
Level of Detail
Our history has been to provide primarily summary level information by department. Staff
wants to make sure the City Council continues to be comfortable with the information that is
presented and the format of that data.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Since we have a Vision action plan guide for the next 18 months, there will probably be several
new initiatives proposed for the 2008 budget. If new budget authority is requested for specific
vision steps, does the City Council want to see each of those items separately?
LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN:
The department directors have been discussing a comprehensive view of the city’s finances.
This plan incorporates information from various sources to look at what happens to the city’s
overall financial picture over a ten-year period based on current assumptions.
This review has led to the discovery of some financial practices that could be modified to
maintain our financial stability and good stewardship of funds. The information is just
preliminary at this time, but we will verify the accuracy of the Finance Department assumptions
with each department in the next couple of months. Our intention is to share this information
with the City Council concurrently with the budget process. The goal is to have a model which
shows the impact that individual budget decisions have on our long-range ability to meet our
citizen’s needs.
SUMMARY:
The result of this discussion will allow the Finance Director to prepare a guideline document to
accompany the budget materials for department directors to use in establishing their preliminary
budget requests for 2008.
Attachments: Proposed Budget Calendar
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 051407 - 5 - 2008 Budget
Page 3
2008 Proposed
City of St. Louis Park
Budget Calendar
Due Date Dept. Description
May 14, 2007 Finance Preliminary Budget discussion with Council
May, 2007 Finance
Discussion with Department Directors to provide update
regarding Council budget discussion and directives
May, 2007 Finance Revenue/Expenses (Actuals) updates to budget worksheets
May, 2007 Finance
Budget worksheets distributed electronically to all
departments
June, 2007
All
Departments
Begin process of CIP analysis and completion of CIP
information/ request forms
June, 2007 Finance Long-range financial planning work session
July, 2007
All
Departments Proposed budget files completed by Department Heads
July, 2007 Finance
Department Head Meeting to discuss major budget impacts
and ideas
July, 2007 Finance
Budget & CIP document compiled and presented to
Department Heads
July, 2007 Finance Budget & CIP discussion & review by Council
August, 2007
All
Departments
CIP information/Request forms due to Finance for 2008 –
2012 CIP
August, 2007 Finance Budget & CIP discussion with Department Directors
August, 2007 Finance
Budget and CIP presentation to Council
(include fees, rates, and tax information)
September,
2007 Finance Preliminary tax levy and budget approval by Council
September 15,
2007 Finance
Certification of preliminary tax levy to county -- reports due
to state
September -
November Finance
Study session(s) on proposed budget, CIP,
and long-range financial planning
November,
2007 Finance
Presentation for Business Council, Neighborhoods,
and/or other community groups
November,
2007 Finance
Notice of Truth in Taxation (Budget Public Hearing)
published
December 3,
2007 Finance Truth in taxation (Budget Public Hearing)
December 17,
2007 Finance Council adoption of budget, tax levy, and CIP
December 26,
2007 Finance Certification of tax levy and other required forms
December,
2007 Finance Budget and CIP published on Website
Note: Items in blue are meetings with the City Council
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 6 - Status of 2005 Louisiana Ave S Excess Land Parcel
Page 1
6. Status of 2005 Louisiana Avenue South, Excess Land
Parcel
Community Development
PURPOSE:
This report informs Council of the status of the 2005 Louisiana Ave S excess land parcel. The
parcel has been bid out twice, and the County has reduced the price twice. The County’s current
reduced price of $20,000 is nearly the same as the highest bid received.
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2005 the Council determined that
certain parcels of vacant land should be developed
for large single family homes. Staff was directed
to prepare these parcels for sale for the
development of single family homes. The tax
forfeit parcels require approval by the State and
County before they could be purchased by the
City; and, then re-sold as single family home
sites. The State and County approved the sale of
the parcel located at 2005 Louisiana Ave South in
November 2006.
The County had originally determined a purchase
cost of $50,000 which reflects a reduced value
due to poor soil conditions. The City first bid the parcel out at $50,000 and received one bid of
$1,001. Based on the lack of qualifying bids, staff requested the County reduce the purchase
price to $30,000, noting high traffic levels on Louisiana Avenue, and the difficulty a potential
owner would have accessing Louisiana Ave.
The parcel was bid out the second time in February with an appraised value of $30,000. The
highest bidder at $33,600, withdrew his bid as he was the highest resident bidder on two
properties, and chose to purchase the 7701 Edgebrook Drive parcel. The second highest bid on
this parcel was $20,505.
Staff reported the results of a high bid at $20,000 to the County and negotiated another purchase
price reduction to $20,000. The individual with the $20,505 bid remains interested in purchasing
the parcel. This bidder is a non-resident City employee; the City’s counsel determined that there
is no conflict of interest as the employee has not been, nor is involved with the purchase and sale
of properties.
PROCESS:
The cost of the parcel to the City will be $20,000, plus standard transfer costs that include
Assurance Fees, State Deed Preparation Fee, Filing Fees and State Deed Tax. The Development
Fund would be the funding source for this purchase, and will be reimbursed when the parcel is
sold. Because this property is being sold by the County as tax forfeited property, the County is
required to share the proceeds from the land sale with the City. The City’s share of the County
land sale proceeds will be approximately half the purchase cost, or $10,000. The City will
receive additional revenue from the sale of the parcel to an individual.
2005 Louisiana Ave S
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 6 - Status of 2005 Louisiana Ave S Excess Land Parcel
Page 2
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will prepare a resolution directing the purchase of this parcel, from the State for $20,000,
plus transfer costs, for approval at the next Council Meeting.
Following approval of the resolution staff will take the following actions.
• Submit the required paperwork to the State and County. The legal requirements for
acquisitions of this type include: a certified copy of the City Council’s resolution
directing purchase of the parcel, payment, and a cover letter stating intention to purchase.
• Following the City’s purchase of the parcel, the City will QuitClaim the parcel to the St.
Louis Park Housing Authority for sale to a private individual. The City Council
delegated the Housing Authority with the responsibility of actual sale of the vacant
parcels for single-family homes.
Attachment: Resolution 07-012
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 6 - Status of 2005 Louisiana Ave S Excess Land Parcel
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 07-012
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PURCHASE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEITED LANDS AT
2005 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
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, the State of Minnesota is present owner for public use of certain tax-
forfeited lands located at 2005 Louisiana Ave S in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
and legally described as follows:
Lots 202 and 203 Richmond 3rd Addition
PID 08 117 21 12 0145
WHEREAS, the City desires to do an outright purchase of these tax-forfeited lands (the
“Premises”) from the State of Minnesota at a cost to be determined by Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City requests acquisition of the Premises for the redevelopment of a
single family home under programs administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Staff is authorized and directed to take such steps as are necessary for the outright
purchase of the property by the City of St. Louis Park at a cost of $30,000 plus standard transfer
costs.
(2) The Mayor, City Manager and staff are authorized to prepare and execute such
documents as are necessary to accomplish the purchase.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 16, 2007
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 1
7. Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement with
Duke Realty.
Community Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To present the proposed Preliminary Development Agreement with Duke Realty for its proposed
West End commercial redevelopment project at the southwest corner of I-394 and Highway 100.
BACKGROUND:
At the March 26 and April 23, 2007 Study Sessions the EDA/City Council expressed its
willingness to allow staff to work with Duke Realty Limited Partnership on the feasibility of its
proposed West End commercial redevelopment project. As a result, staff has prepared a
Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) with Duke Realty.
Attached is the PDA negotiated with Duke Realty. The purpose of this agreement is to formalize
the conditions of engagement, roles and responsibilities of the parties, due diligence, and
feasibility work to be completed, etc. It commits the EDA, City and the Developer to work
together on the proposed project for a period of nine months.
It should be noted that the concept site plans prepared by Duke Realty and discussed at the study
sessions are not part of the proposed Agreement. They will however serve, along with the
EDA/City Council’s comments from the study sessions, as the starting point for preparing a
more definitive site plan for the property at a later date.
Furthermore, the proposed Agreement merely outlines next steps in the pre-development process
and the specific responsibilities of the respective parties. It is not meant as any kind of
commitment to provide public finance assistance.
NEXT STEPS:
EDA/Councilmembers should direct any questions or concerns with the proposed Agreement to
staff. If the EDA/City Council is supportive of the proposed Agreement as presented it will be
brought to the May 21st EDA and City Council meetings for formal consideration.
Attachment: Preliminary Development Agreement
Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 2
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated this ___ day of May, 2007, by and between the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation (the “City”); the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”); and Duke Realty
Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (collectively, the “Developer”):
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority and City has an expressed desire to optimize the use of
property within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project Area”) in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of certain obsolete property within the Project
Area, which property is described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property or Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed to remove the existing structures and correct the
soils to enable the development of approximately 1,100,000 square feet of office space,
approximately 340,000 square feet of retail space, and a hotel (the “Development”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority, City and Developer are willing and desirous to undertake the
Development if (i) a satisfactory agreement can be reached regarding how the Property should be
redeveloped by Developer; (ii) satisfactory mortgage and equity financing, or adequate cash
resources, for the Development can be secured by Developer; (iii) satisfactory resolution of
zoning, land use and site design issues and (iv) the economic feasibility and soundness of the
Development and other necessary preconditions have been determined to the satisfaction of the
parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and
obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Negotiations between the parties shall proceed in an attempt to formulate a
definitive development contract (“Contract”) based on the following:
(a) Developer’s current proposal which shows the scope of the proposed
Development in its latest form as of the date of this Agreement, together with any
changes or modifications required by the Authority;
(b) A mutually satisfactory Contract to be negotiated and agreed upon in accordance
with this Agreement;
(c) Such documentation regarding economic feasibility of the Development as the
Authority may wish to undertake during the term of this Agreement; and
(d) Other terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. It is the intention of the parties that this Agreement (a) documents the present
understanding and commitments of the parties and (b) will lead to negotiation and execution of a
mutually satisfactory Contract for the Development prior to the termination date of this
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 3
Agreement. The Contract (together with any other agreements entered into between the parties
hereto contemporaneously therewith) when executed, will supersede all obligations of the parties
hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Authority and City shall have
no obligation to provide any financial assistance to the Developer or approve any action in
connection with the Development unless and until final approval by the Authority and City of a
definitive Contract.
3. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer, Authority and City agree to
undertake the respective actions described in Exhibit B attached hereto.
4. It is expressly understood that execution and implementation of a Contract shall
be subject to;
(a) A determination by the Authority and City that its undertakings are
feasible, consistent with City plans, and in the best interests of the City and the Project
Area;
(b) Agreement by the parties on a mechanism for recapture of public funds, if
any, provided to the Developer under certain conditions; and
(c) A determination by Developer that the Development is feasible and in the
best interests of the Developer.
5. This Agreement is effective for a term ending 275 days from its date, unless
extended by mutual agreement of the parties. The Executive Director of the Authority is
authorized to execute any such extension on behalf of the Authority and City.
6. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Authority acknowledges receipt from the
Developer of a $2,000 TIF Application Fee and deposit in the amount of $45,000, from which
funds the Authority may pay any third party out-of-pocket costs incurred by the Authority or
City in connection with the Exhibit B activities for furthering the Development from and after
the date of this Agreement (hereafter, the “Authority Costs”). If at any time after the date of this
Agreement the Authority determines that Authority Costs will exceed $45,000, the Authority
may notify the Developer of the amount of such additional costs. Within ten calendar days of
receipt of said notice, the Developer shall deliver to the Authority the required additional funds.
If a Contract is successfully negotiated, any unused balance in the funds deposited under this
Section 6 shall be returned to the Developer upon execution of the Contract (unless the parties
specify otherwise in the Contract). The Authority agrees to provide Developer reasonable
documentation of the Authority Costs and to inform Developer of changes in scope of Exhibit B
activities affecting the Authority Costs.
If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms, the Authority will return to
the Developer the balance of any funds deposited under this section as of the date of receipt of
the notice of termination, and less any Authority Costs incurred through the date of receipt of the
notice of termination. For the purposes of this paragraph, Authority Costs are considered to be
incurred if they have been paid, relate to services performed, or are payable under a contract
entered into, on or before the date of receipt of the notice of termination. The Authority agrees
that it will promptly terminate any contract for Authority Costs (except as provided below) upon
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 4
receipt of the notice of termination, and Authority Costs include amounts payable under the
terms of such terminated contract, including without limitation costs payable prior to termination
or other amounts payable in connection with the termination. If the Authority elects not to
terminate the contract, Authority Costs will include only the lesser of: i) amounts that would be
payable to the contracting party if the contract were terminated or ii) amounts paid or incurred
under the contact as of the notice of termination. The Authority agrees to use its best efforts to
negotiate termination clauses in all contracts for Authority Costs that provide for no penalties for
termination, but only provide for payment of a prorata contract amount in the event of such
termination.
7. This Agreement may be terminated upon ten (10) days written notice by any party
to the others if:
(i) A party fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder, and fails to cure
the default within 30 days after receipt of written notice thereof; or
(ii) An impasse has been reached in the negotiation of any material term or
condition of the Contract.
Upon termination under this Section, no party thereafter shall have any liability or obligations to
the other except as otherwise provided in Section 6 hereof.
8. The Developer shall not assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement in full
or in part without the prior written consent of the Authority, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed; provided that Developer shall have the right to
assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement in full or in part to an affiliate of Developer or
an entity controlled by or in common control with Developer without the prior written consent of
the Authority.
9. In the event that any party, its heirs, successors or assigns, fails to comply with
any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may proceed to enforce this
Agreement b y appropriate legal or equitable proceedings, or other similar proceedings.
10. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of the
Agreement.
11. In the event any covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by one
party and subsequently waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular
breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent
breach.
12. Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be
sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered
personally:
(a) As to the Authority: 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 5
Attn: EDA Executive Director
(b) As to the City: 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
Attn: City Manager
(c) As to the Developer: 1600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Attn: Patrick E. Mascia
13. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts,
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed
in its name and behalf and its seal to be duly affixed hereto and the Developer has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Its: President
By:
Its: Executive Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By: _______________________________
Mayor
By: _______________________________
City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 8
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
an Indiana limited partnership
By: Duke Realty Corporation,
an Indiana corporation, its general partner
By: _____________________________
Patrick E. Mascia
Senior Vice President
DUKE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Indiana limited partnership
By: Duke Business Centers Corporation,
an Indiana corporation, its general partner
By: _____________________________
Patrick E. Mascia
Senior Vice President
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 9
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 10
EXHIBIT B
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN DUKE REALTY CORPORATION, THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DEVELOPER
1. Deposit in escrow funds necessary to complete environmental review (AUAR).
2. Prepare detailed explanation of proposed project partners (including previous related
experience and proposed project financial participation), project financing, and anticipated
disposition of project assets and subsequent property management.
3. Cooperate with the EDA/City in the preparation of a market analysis and economic
feasibility study of the retail portions of the proposed project, the parameters of which shall
be mutually agreed upon between Developer and the Authority. Developer agrees to deposit
in escrow the necessary funds to complete the study.
4. Prepare alternative site designs for the western portion of the project area.
5. Complete refinements to the preliminary concept site plan for the Property including:
proposed subdivision, location of improvements, development design, intensity issues,
parking, use mix, traffic management, pedestrian and transit linkages, public space, and
integration of green space. The concept site plan will be illustrated with site plans,
perspective drawings, and section drawings.
6. Examine possible future uses of that portion of the Site currently subject to long term
ground leases.
7. Complete an application for tax increment financing.
8. Submit full project proforma and cooperate with review for public financing assistance.
9. Participate in the preparation of a preliminary business term sheet for the proposed Contract.
10. Submit payment to the EDA for TIF Application Fee.
11. Submit escrow payment to the City to pay, as part of the Authority Costs, for a TIF
Qualification Report, market analysis and economic feasibility study and reimbursement
of all EDA financial and legal consulting fees related to the proposed project.
12. Prepare proposed project construction schedule.
13. Continue discussions with City Planning and Zoning staff to advance any necessary
approvals.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 11
14. Continue discussions with City engineering staff re: traffic, transportation, and utility
issues associated with the site.
15. Participate in public meetings as necessary.
16. Negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the Contract.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 7 - Proposed Preliminary Development Agreement Duke Realty
Page 12
AUTHORITY AND/OR CITY
1. Complete the TIF Qualification Report for the subject site.
2. Continue to manage the AUAR process.
3. Pursue adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Golden Valley.
4. Retain a qualified consultant to prepare a market analysis and economic feasibility study
for the retail portion of the proposed project, the parameters of which shall be mutually
agreed upon between Developer and the Authority.
5. Coordinate community planning process for the western portion of the project area with
particular emphasis on design and placement of parking ramps and public spaces.
6. Detail all requirements and any necessary changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the proposed Development.
7. Prepare a list of all the anticipated planning and zoning-related approvals necessary to
enable the proposed project to be constructed along with a corresponding schedule of
required approvals.
8. Work with the Developer on the design and location of proposed streets, utilities, public
spaces and other public improvements within the site area.
9. Review Developer’s project proformas and determine need for public financing assistance.
10. Prepare a preliminary business term sheet for the proposed Contract.
11. Coordinate public meetings as necessary.
12. Negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the Contract.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 1
8. Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels Community Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the
pending request for development and sale process for the three
multi-lot excess land parcels identified through the excess land
process as having development potential. Two of the parcels are
on I-394 Frontage Road on each side of Texas Avenue, and the
third is located at 9019 Cedar Lake Road. See map for site
locations.
BACKGROUND:
The goal of the Request for Development Proposal (“RFDP”) is to seek responses from creative,
capable and experienced developers or development teams to develop the sites according to the
use as determined by the Council in December 2005. The determined use each of the multi-lot
parcels is noted below.
1. 9019 Cedar Lake Road. The recommended use is to develop up to four single family
detached homes on the site. The site plan shall retain lake visibility from Cedar Lake Road.
2. 13th Lane West I-394 Frontage Road, East of Texas Ave. The recommended is to develop a
mixed use or live/work development which would include owner-occupied multi-housing
units.
3. I-394 Frontage Road and Texas Avenue. The recommended use is for up to eleven units of
owner-occupied multi-family housing units. An easement will be required for the existing
Public Works pumping station.
It was determined that the development of the three mulit-lot parcels would require significantly
different expertise than required to develop the single family lots. The three lots require a
developer with demonstrated capability of subdividing, platting, grading, coordinating road and
sewer, rezoning and comp plan amendments, rather than individual residents. The attached
RFDP (for 13th Lane West) addresses these needs.
The RFDP attempts to capture the City’s design philosophy which emphasizes new construction
that is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. It also addresses the City’s desire that green
design and building techniques are used. The use will be evaluated based on the entire project
and its compatibility with, and impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Proposals will be
reviewed to determine the most appropriate design consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Excess Land Task Force Recommendations. The offered price will also be a consideration in
selection and the City will provide no financial contribution to the project. Finally, the city
attorney has reviewed the RFDP.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 2
RFDP PROCESS:
Each parcel will have its own RFDP, and the two parcels on the frontage road should be released
at the same time, while the 9010 Cedar Lake Road parcel will be let later. Below is the timeline
and process.
1. Timeline for two I-394 Frontage Road Parcels. Due to staff workload, the RFDP for the
9019 Cedar Lake Road parcel will be let later this summer.
May 24 RFDP notice is published
May – July 16 Distribution of RFDP
June 5 Pre Bid Meeting
July 16 Proposal Due
July -August Selection Process
August Recommendation to Council – Pre Development Agreement
September Negotiations with selected Developer(s)
September Finalize development team(s) and terms of Development Contract
2. Selection Process. Highlights of the selection process include a citizen review committee
that will make their recommendation to the Council. The selected developer will conduct a
minimum of one neighborhood meeting following Council’s consideration of the
committee’s recommendation to refine the project. The selection process is outlined below
and complete details in the attached RFDP.
a. City Planning, Inspections and Public Works staff will conduct a technical review of all
submittals for presentation to the Citizen Review Committee.
b. Staff will schedule follow-up meetings with the most qualified developers submitting
innovative development concepts consistent with the stated goals and objectives
c. A Citizen Review Committee of Planning Commission, Housing Authority, Architect,
Landscape Architect, and Neighborhood representatives will review the proposals, and
narrow down to a group of finalists.
d. The Citizen Review Committee will make a recommendation of a developer to the City
Council.
e. Upon approval by the Council, the City and developer will enter into a to pre-
development agreement
f. The selected developer will conduct a minimum of one public meeting with the
neighborhood.
g. The developer will then refine plans and begin the approval process.
h. The City and developer will enter into a redevelopment agreement.
If Council has questions regarding this written report, contact Kathy Larsen at 924-2196.
Attachments: Resolution Determining the Future Use of Certain Excess Public Lands
Draft Request for Development Proposal (13th Lane West)
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-168
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE FUTURE USE OF CERTAIN
EXCESS PUBLIC LANDS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park owns certain property the status and use of which
has been reviewed as part of the City’s excess public land process; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park can obtain title to certain other public property
the status and use of which has been reviewed as part of the City’s excess public land process;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that to sell certain parcels and retain others in public
ownership as set forth herein is in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Parcel 2. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property
located at 2715 Monterey Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 2 on the City’s Excess Public
Lands List for the construction of one single family home. City will retain the easement located
on the parcel for storm water utility purposes.
2. Parcel 6. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property
located at 2005 Louisiana Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 6 for the construction of one
single family home.
3. Parcel 10. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the
necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at 9019
Cedar Lake Road; and identified as Parcel 10 for the purpose of developing up to four single
family homes on the site. The site plan shall retain lake visibility from Cedar Lake Road.
4. Parcel 12. If this parcel is not deemed by the City Council to be necessary for use
as an off-leash dog park and retained in public ownership, then City staff is directed to seek
development proposals and take the necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated
capability, the property located at 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 12
for the purpose of developing up to four single family homes on the site. Potential buyers shall
be made aware of train noise.
5. Parcel 16. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property
located at 7701 Edgebrook Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 16 for the construction of one
single family home, including noise mitigating construction. Potential buyers shall be made
aware of train noise.
6. Parcel 19. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell the property
located at 4200 Natchez Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 19 for the construction of two
single family homes. The site plan must accommodate existing drainage. A portion of the site,
at direction of the City Engineer will be retained by the City for storm water purposes.
7. Parcel 7. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the
necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at 13th
Lane West; and identified as Parcel 7 for the construction of a mixed use or live/work
development which would include owner-occupied multi-housing units.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 4
8. Parcel 8. City staff is directed to seek development proposals and take the
necessary steps to sell to a developer with demonstrated capability, the property located at Texas
Avenue and Frontage Road; and identified as Parcel 8 for the construction of up to eleven units
of owner-occupied multi-family housing units. An easement will be required for the existing
Public Works pumping station.
9. Parcels 1, 14 & 15. As to Parcel 1 located at 2914 Inglewood Avenue South,
Parcel 14 located at 6534 Walker Avenue, and Parcel 15 located at 3301 Gorham Avenue, City
staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell or lease parking lots to adjacent businesses to
be retained as parking lots, consistent with City policies, plans and efforts to manage and lease
its other publicly owned parking facilities and ensure that parking remains available to the
general public at these lots.
10. Parcel 5. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of
the property located at 2015 Louisiana Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 5, to the abutting
property owners. The parcel is not deemed suitable for building and will remain vacant due to
drainage issues on this site.
11. Parcel 9. City staff is directed to take the necessary steps to sell all or a portion of
the property located at 1608 Utah Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 9, to the abutting
owners or group of neighbors. The city will retain an easement for pond access for storm water
purposes. The buildable footprint on this site does not allow for a large home.
12. Parcel 4. City staff is directed to re-evaluate the property located at Cedar Lake
Road and Highway 100; and identified as Parcel 4 for residential development if MnDOT
determines that future conveyance of the parcel to the City is desirable. Up to five homes could
be sited on this parcel.
13. Parcel 20. The City will retain the property located at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard;
and identified as Parcel 20 for future development. Building single family homes should be
considered as a component of future development proposals for this site.
14. Parcel 11. City staff is directed to initiate a planning process with the
neighborhood of Parcel 11 located at 9258 Club Road, to establish the future use of this site,
recognizing that lack of access to the site currently restricts building and park use.
15. Parcel 13. The City will retain the property located at 2812 Zarthan Avenue; and
identified as Parcel 13 for storm water utility purposes.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
I-394 FRONTAGE ROAD
EAST OF TEXAS AVE ON 13TH LANE WEST
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) is seeking responses to a Request for Development
Proposals (“RFDP”) from creative, capable and experienced developers or development teams to
develop the site with a mixed-use residential and commercial project. The City’s excess land
process resulted in the city’s determination that this site be developed as an innovative mixture
of owner occupied residential (5-7 units) and commercial use. The City’s design philosophy
emphasizes new construction that is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. The City
desires that green design and building techniques are used.
The use will be evaluated based on the entire project and its compatibility with, and impact on
the adjacent neighborhoods. Proposals will be reviewed to determine the most appropriate
design consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Excess Land Task Force Recommendations.
The offered price will also be a consideration in selection; the City will provide no financial
contribution to the project.
A. SITE
This site is located between Wayzata Boulevard (I 394 Frontage Road) on 13th Lane W just e
west of Pennsylvania Avenue South. It is approximately 38,500 sq. ft. or .88 acre in size.
An aerial photo and topographical site survey are attached. The appraised value is $450,000.
B. SITE CONDITIONS
1. Environmental. No environmental report is available. Conditions are as-is with no
warranty either expressed or implied.
2. Soils and Subsurface Conditions. No technical reports for the sites are available.
Conditions are as-is with no warranty either expressed or implied.
3. Utility Information. Water and sanitary sewer available in 13th Lane. Conditions are as-
is with no warranty either expressed or implied. See utility as built attached.
4. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. The zoning is R3 – Two-Family
Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Right of Way. A comprehensive
plan amendment and rezoning will be necessary to develop mixed-use residential and
commercial at this site.
5. The selected developer will be required to make applications for The Comprehensive
Plan and zoning changes and all required approvals.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 6
C. SCHEDULE
May 24 RFDP notice is published
May – July 16 Distribution of RFDP
June 5 Pre Bid Meeting
July 16 Proposal Due
July -August Selection Process
August Recommendation to Council – Pre Development Agreement
September Negotiations with selected Developer(s)
September Finalize development team(s) and terms of Development Contract
II. SELECTION PROCESS
A. THE SELECTION
1. City Planning, Inspections and Public Works staff will conduct a technical review of all
submittals for presentation to the Citizen Review Committee.
2. Staff will schedule follow-up meetings with the most qualified developers submitting
innovative development concepts consistent with the stated goals and objectives.
3. A Citizen Review Committee of Planning Commission, Housing Authority, Architect,
Landscape Architect, and Neighborhood representatives will review the proposals, and
narrow down to a group of finalists.
4. The Citizen Review Committee will make a recommendation of a developer to the City
Council. Upon approval by the Council the City and developer will enter into a to pre-
development agreement.
5. The selected developer will conduct a minimum of one public meeting with the
neighborhood.
6. The developer will then refine plans and begin the approval process.
7. The City and developer will enter into a redevelopment agreement.
B. SELECTION CRITERIA
The City will make decisions based upon information received from the submitting
developer, interviews, investigation of projects completed by the developer, price and other
pertinent factors. The selected developer will be chosen on the basis of design,
qualifications and offering price.
1. General Design
a. A development plan designed to respect and complement the scale and proportions of
adjacent properties and projects.
b. The exterior design of all projects must be visually attractive through the use of high
quality materials and creative design details.
c. Incorporates green building and design elements.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 7
2. Developer’s Qualifications and Experience
a. Demonstrated experience in developing innovative urban project and product types
and creative designs; list projects, names/types/dates of constructing/locations/size
and number of units.
b. Experience of principals and team members
c. Demonstrated ability to deliver high quality projects on an established time line
d. Demonstrated ability to successfully work in a joint public/private environment
e. Evidence of recent examples of financing and construction of comparable size and
quality development products.
3. Offering Price
The appraised value reflects the price paid by the city to acquire the property. The city
seeks a price that covers the city’s costs. The highest bidder will not automatically be
selected.
III. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
A. THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE ORGANIZED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
1. Cover letter with developer information, offering price, and signed by an authorized
representative. Please include:
a. Contact name, title, address, telephone, fax number and e-mail address .
b. Legal name, address and status of the developer.
c. Names and addresses of the individual principals with authority to legally bind the
developer.
d. If a Joint Venture is being proposed, provide the above information for all
participating developers.
2. Design
The City wishes to obtain enough preliminary information to evaluate architectural style,
land-use mix, tenant mix, and preliminary massing.
a. Meet the General Design guidelines outlined in this RFDP.
b. Detailed design elevations are not required as a part of the submittal, but a
preliminary design elevation(s) is highly desirable.
c. A preliminary site plan identifying the proposed placement of structures/building uses
and orientation to streets and existing structures is essential.
3. Developer Qualifications and Experience
a. Provide a concise description of the developer including organization structure,
identification of principals or parent companies, length of time in business, and office
locations. If the developer is a joint venture, furnish this information for each entity
forming the joint venture.
b. Meet Developer’s Qualifications and Experience outlined in this RFDP.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 8
4. Proposed Development Timeline
Provide a preliminary development schedule for the proposed development indicating
dates for major milestones, such as start of project design, construction bids, and start of
construction.
B. SUBMIT PROPOSAL
1. Proposals must received by 4:30 pm, July 16, 2007
a. Place in sealed envelope marked “St. Louis Park Public Land Redevelopment
Proposal”.
b. Deliver to Community Development Dept., 2nd floor St Louis Park City Hall, 5005
Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
c. Submit six copies on 8-1/2” x 11” paper with foldouts if necessary. E-mail or
electronic delivery may supplement hard copy.
d. Include offering price in cover letter.
2. Project Contact
Send all questions, comments, and requests for clarification electronically to:
klarsen@stlouispark.org. Responses will be sent to all that have requested the RFDP.
Kathy Larsen
Housing Programs Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2196
www.klarsen@stlouispark.org
Planning and Zoning Questions
Community Development Dept.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 9
IV. SELECTED DEVELOPER
A. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
1. Prior to review by the Citizen Review Committee, the developer will work with City staff
to obtain review comments and determine city approval processes.
2. The Citizen Review Committee approval does not remove the responsibility of the
developer(s) to design a project that meets the zoning regulations and building codes of
the City.
3. The City Council will receive the recommendations of the review committee for
consideration.
4. Once selected, the successful developer(s) will be expected to present schematic, design
development and final construction documents for review and approval.
B. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED
1. If the City selects a candidate(s) to provide the services described within this RFDP, and
the City deems the developer(s) to be capable, experienced and financially prepared, the
City may enter into a Purchase Agreement and Development Agreement as deemed
appropriate by the City.
2. The selected developer(s) must be willing to negotiate and enter into a written Contract
with the City to acquire control of and construct an approved development project on the
property.
3. Taxes, liability insurance, property maintenance, site security, permits, approvals, and all
aspects of owning and developing the property shall be the full responsibility of the
developer at the time of conveyance as specified in the Agreement.
C. EARNEST MONEY
1. Upon selection, the developer shall submit a non-refundable check (certified or cashier's)
made payable to the City in the amount of 10% of the proposed purchase price for the
conveyance of land(s).
2. The developer will be required to submit the earnest money within 10 days of being
notified that it has been selected or forfeit its position and the City will begin negotiations
with an alternative developer selected by the selection committee.
3. The earnest money shall be non-refundable in the event developer, after performing its
due diligence, elects to terminate the transaction. If the transaction is not terminated, the
total earnest money will then be applied toward the conveyance price. Should the chosen
development team be unable to perform for any reason, the developer shall forfeit the
earnest money and the City shall retain the earnest money as liquidated damages.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 10
D. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The City reserves the right to select a developer(s) solely on the basis of qualifications.
The City also reserves the right to accept or reject any and all of the responses, in whole
or in part; to alter the selection process in any way; to postpone or cancel the selection
process for its own convenience at any time; to waive any defects/informalities; to
disregard all non-conforming, non-responsive or conditional responses; and/or to issue a
new RFDP at any time.
2. All proposals, including attachments, supplementary materials, addenda, etc. shall
become the property of the City and will not be returned.
3. The developer, by submitting a response to the RFDP, waives all rights to protest or seek
any legal remedies whatsoever regarding any aspect of the RFDP, the City’s selection of
a developer with whom it enters into negotiations, the City’s rejection of any or all
responses and any subsequent Agreement that might be entered into as a result of the
Request for Proposal.
4. This RFDP and the selection process shall in no way be deemed to create a binding
contract or agreement of any kind between the City and developer.
5. The developer, its employees, contractors, and primary subcontractors will not
discriminate against or segregate any person or group of person on any unlawful basis in
the construction, sale, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the property or
any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof.
6. All legal rights and obligations between the successful respondent(s), if any, and The
City will come into existence only when an agreement is fully executed by the parties,
and the legal rights and obligations which are set forth in the agreement and/or any other
document superficially referred to in that agreement and executed by the parties.
7. Each developer/team submitting a response to this RFDP agrees that the cost of all
materials and all presentations are at the respondent’s sole cost and expense.
8. The City shall not, under any circumstances, be responsible for any costs or expenses
incurred by a respondent in preparing a proposal.
E. NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY
All information contained herein is from sources deemed reliable, but no warranty or
representation is made as to the accuracy thereof and same is submitted subject to errors,
omissions, or withdrawal without notice. The developer should make its own conclusions
regarding the site, its physical, environmental, and/or market conditions. Information
provided in this RFDP, as well as in related reports, drawings, and addenda by the City’s
staff and consultants, is provided for the convenience of developers only.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 8 - Sale Process for Three Multi-Lot Vacant City Parcels
Page 11
F. NON-LIABILITY AND RELATED MATTERS
1. Inspection of Property. Developers shall be given an opportunity to inspect the parcel and
the title to the parcel, among other things.
2. If the developer is selected and elects to proceed after exercising its due diligence, it shall
acquire or take possession of the parcel in "AS-IS” CONDITION.
3. The City through the conveyance of the property in no way guarantees or warrants
demolition permits, building permits, zoning approvals or financial viability.
4. Developer acknowledges by submitting information and proposals to the City, the City
does not undertake and shall have no liability with respect to the development program,
the RFDP, and responses thereto nor with respect to any matters related to any
submission by a developer. By submitting a proposal in response to the RFDP, the
developer releases the City from all liability with respect to the development program, the
RFDP and all matters related thereto, covenants not to sue the City regarding such matter
and agrees to hold the City harmless from any claims made by the developer or anyone
claiming by through or under the developer in connection therewith
The city reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject all proposals and initiate a new RFDP, or
to accept for consideration any proposal which has not complied with the conditions of the
RFDP.
RESPONSES ARE DUE:
JULY 16, 2007 - 4:30 PM
AT ST. LOUIS PARK, CITY HALL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Please Note on Proposal Package: “St. Louis Park Public Land Redevelopment Proposal”
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 1
9. Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the planning, design, and
public involvement activities associated with the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange
Project.
BACKGROUND:
On March 26, 2007 staff presented Council a Study Session Report (attached Exhibit A)
providing an update on this project. As a part of that report, a project schedule (attached Exhibit
B) identifying project tasks and a time line was also provided. Phase I of the project
development process was completed in March and staff recommended Phase II activities begin
in April. Subsequently, Council approved additional consultant services for this effort and Phase
II activities are now beginning.
PHASE II ACTIVITIES:
Phase II activities are generally identified as:
Concept Design Work/Project Management
Traffic Operations Analysis
Environmental Inventory/Investigation
Public Involvement
Phase II can generally be described as the process for the technical/public development and
comparison of the proposed interchange concepts (attached Exhibits C & D). These activities
are planned to be completed by October to November of this year.
Staff met with our project consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) in late April to discuss
and plan the contemplated Phase II activities identified above.
Based on that meeting, a Project Management Team (PMT) is being formed from staff of
involved Agencies to aid us in the first three Phase II activities listed above (the technical
development and comparison of the proposed concepts). In addition to the PMT agencies listed,
other stakeholders have been identified which will be informed of the project and be allowed
opportunity to provide input on the various concepts being developed and compared. The
stakeholders have been identified as A) “directly” impacted property owners and B) “indirectly”
affected parties. Each group will likely have different interests and involvements in this project
during the next several months. The attached Exhibit E lists currently identified PMT members
and stakeholders; others may be identified and added to this list as the project progresses.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 2
NEXT STEPS:
SRF and staff have identified the following steps to forward Phase II activities:
City Council Study Session (project update) May 2007
PMT meeting (convene the PMT) May 2007
Meet with A) “directly” impacted property
owners (project kickoff/concept information)
May 2007
Public information meeting / Open
House (project kickoff/concept information)
June 2007
PMT meeting (develop concepts) June 2007
PMT meeting (develop concepts) July 2007
PMT meeting (develop concepts) August 2007
City Council Study Session (discuss concepts) August – September 2007
Public information meeting (concepts update) August – September 2007
PMT meeting (refine/compare concepts) September 2007
PMT meeting (refine/compare concepts) October 2007
Meet with A) “directly” impacted property
owners (schedule as needed)
June – October 2007
City Council Study Session (discuss concepts) October – November 2007
City Council meeting (choose final concept) October – November 2007
In addition to the public meetings described above, the PMT will work with Jamie Zwilling, City
Communications Coordinator, to keep the public informed about this project via our website,
email, cable, and web streaming of various activities. This communications program is currently
under development.
Once final design concept is decided upon, detail design and environmental study/documentation
activities will begin (Phase III). There will be an appropriate public information and
involvement process developed for the Phase III activities as that phase is implemented.
SUMMARY:
Staff has not identified any policy issues for Council input at this time so staff is providing this
update in a report format. If Council members have questions or desire to provide input on the
proposed activities described in this report, please feel free to contact Mike Rardin.
Attachments: Attachment “A” - Study Session Report of March 26, 2007
Attachment “B” – Project Schedule (Updated May 2007) (Supplement)
Attachment “C” – Traditional Interchange Layout (Supplement)
Attachment “D” – Roundabout Interchange Layout (Supplement)
Attachment “E” – Project Management Team / Stakeholder Sheet (Supplement)
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 3
Attachment A
Study Session Report 3/26/07
6. Highway 7 / Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on planning and design activities
associated with the Highway 7/ Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Elmwood Land Use and Transportation Study, conducted in 2002 and 2003, the
Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th Street area was identified for redevelopment. Consistent
with this study, redevelopment projects have begun to move forward in this area. As the City's
traffic consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) completed several traffic studies for the
Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th Street area at that time. SRF and City staff then participated
in discussions with Mn/DOT staff regarding potential grade-separated concepts for the
intersection of Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue. As a result of those discussions, the City
submitted a request for federal funding during the Regional STIP Solicitation process in 2005.
From this solicitation, the City of St. Louis Park was successful in obtaining about $5.9 million
in federal funds to aid in constructing a proposed grade-separated intersection at Highway
7/Wooddale Avenue.
Shortly after receiving notice of being awarded these federal funds, Council directed staff to
tentatively schedule this project for construction in 2009. To aid the City in the development of
this project, SRF developed a planning guide last year for us to meet that timeline. The SRF
planning guide proposed four phases to move this project to the construction stage. During
October of 2006, staff entered into a contract with SRF for Phase I of this process, an areawide
traffic study which consisted of:
An update of the 20-year forecast volumes for all major roadways in the City
An evaluation of the TH 7/Excelsior Boulevard/Louisiana Avenue/Monterey Drive
subarea to determine existing and future system needs from a mid-level context
An operations analysis of the future interchange area of TH 7/Wooddale Avenue/36th
Street to guide the development of a preferred interchange concept
This work was necessary to prepare for the analysis and modeling necessary to more fully
evaluate the earlier developed interchange concepts plus lay the foundation for the eventual
preparation of project design layouts. SRF recently completed their work on Phase I and
submitted their reports for further use.
PHASE 1 STUDY FINDINGS:
For brevity sake, staff has attached the Study Summary plus relevant tables and figure 4 from
SRF’s Final Report dated March 15, 2007. These documents provide relevant summary
information from the Phase I study effort; the complete final reports containing detailed study
information can be made available for Council use if desired.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 4
Several SRF study findings, however, are worth noting at this time:
1. No PN Clinic expansions have been included in the study’s traffic projections. This
finding/assumption was based on conversations with Park Nicollet.
2. Highway 7 is nearly at capacity now (37,000 ADT) and is expected to be at capacity
(41,000 ADT) by year 2030. For Highway 7, a 10 percent total growth over 20 years
equates to 1/2 percent per year, which is typical for cities in within the core.
3. Excelsior Blvd (west of Highway 100) is expected to be near capacity (34,000 ADT) by
year 2030; this was previously thought to happen no later than year 2015. As a result, an
earlier proposed new bridge over Highway 100 does not appear necessary at this time.
However, providing local connections between residential areas and commercial/medical
uses is good for the overall system, because short trips will not be forced to use Highway
7 or Excelsior Blvd. Any expansions at PN Clinic will most likely affect Excelsior Blvd
and the near-term need for a bridge will again surface.
4. Under future conditions, the intersection of TH 7/Wooddale Avenue will operate at LOS
E under a “best-case” scenario without a railroad crossing, LRT crossing or an
emergency vehicle pre-emption. The overall operations will only worsen to LOS F with
these conflicts incorporated into the model. Therefore, it appears at this time that all
future rail operations should be grade separated from Wooddale Avenue traffic.
5. This study verifies the need for the grade-separated intersection at Highway 7 and
Wooddale Avenue as it is expected to operate poorly, without taking into account the
added complexity to serve the RR and potential LRT crossings. Earlier ideas about
improving the Highway 7/Wooddale intersection by relocating the frontage road
intersection with Wooddale to the south; and, adding a second left turn lane for north
bound Wooddale to West bound Highway7 are still ineffective solutions.
NEXT PHASE - PHASE II EFFORT:
The next phase of this project development process, Phase II, is best described as a public
development and comparison of interchange concepts. Undertaking this work is necessary to
keep the Hwy 7/Wooddale interchange project moving along. A brief summary of the work
proposed for this phase is outlined below. The estimated cost of undertaking the Phase II work is
$117,000. The initial source of funds to undertake this work would be HRA Levy proceeds:
Concept Design Work/Project Management
The concept design work will build on the work that was previously completed for the STIP
application (two concepts), as well as the traffic forecasting and operational analysis work
recently finished in this area. We anticipate the use of the existing two concepts, with minor
modifications based on the traffic forecasts, as well as the creation of a third concept. We have
anticipated further revisions to these concepts throughout the project process and have included
those revisions in our work plan. Tasks included under this category include:
Collection/review of the base map data. We will use the data previously prepared for this
area, with minimal site survey work to update the topography (Dworsky site). Property
lines and ownership will be verified.
Develop up to three (3) concept alternatives (and typical sections) and refine as needed.
Preparation of bridge design concepts and rendering at the interchange for the preferred
alternative. Includes one artist rendering of the bridge, one gateway concept and one
gateway detail.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 5
Compute environmental impact areas for each alternative and summarize in a matrix.
Compute concept cost estimates for each of the three alternatives.
Prepare alternatives analysis matrix and report to summarize and document the preferred
alternative selection.
General correspondence, coordination, scheduling and PMT meetings. Assumes six (6)
Project Management Team (PMT) meetings. PMT to consist of SRF and City staff,
Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, Metro
Transit, and Federal Highway Administration.
Traffic Operations Analysis
To assist in the selection of the preferred concept, an operations analysis will be conducted for
up to three (3) concepts. Year 2030 intersection volumes for each of the alternatives will be
developed using the year 2030 (no-build) volumes from Phase I of this study. The appropriate
software program (such as Rodel or VISSIM) will be used. The operations analysis will also
take into consideration the potential at-grade freight operations, LRT operations and
pedestrian/bicycle traffic on the nearby rail corridor. A memorandum describing the results of
the traffic analysis will be completed as part of this work. This category also includes
preparation and attendance for up to two meetings with Mn/DOT and City staff to discuss
technical details of the traffic operations analysis.
Environmental Inventory/Investigation
A solid evaluation of alternatives requires a thorough understanding of potential environmental
and permitting issues prior to determining a preferred alternative. Federal laws require proactive
avoidance of wetlands, cultural resources, parks, trails, wildlife refuges, threatened/ endangered
species and low income/minority populations and must be addressed in the early stages of the
project.
Completion of an environmental inventory during the concept alternative development phase of
the project will assist in alternative evaluation and lay the initial groundwork for completion of
necessary environmental documentation. The environmental inventory will begin with gathering
data about the project area from a variety of sources including federal/state/county/local
databases on soils, identified contaminated sites, previously inventoried cultural resources,
threatened/endangered species, wetlands and other community issues. Data gathered from these
sources will be mapped and documented and used to evaluate and compare alternatives, noting
the limitations in data availability at this early stage. While impact calculations cannot be at the
level of precision required for later environmental documentation given limitations of both
design development and available data, they are a valid base for relative comparisons between
alternatives.
The resulting environmental analysis will then be placed within the overall evaluation matrix to
facilitate comparison of alternative cost and performance as well as impacts.
Public Involvement
With a project of this nature and complexity, it is important to begin the process of agency and
public involvement/coordination early in the project development. The public input, combined
with the multidisciplinary experience of the project management team and the approach
employed by SRF and the City, will result in a quality end product. SRF will work with the City
to develop a public involvement and agency coordination process that best fits the City's needs.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 9 - Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update
Page 6
A suggested number of proposed agency coordination, public, and neighborhood organization
meetings, as well as individual meetings with businesses/schools are detailed below. Tasks
included under this category include:
Early coordination/communication/meetings with other agencies.
Public Meetings includes up to six (6) small group meetings (Canadian Pacific Railroad,
Central Community Center/Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School, and nearby
businesses), one meeting for each of the Elmwood and Sorenson Neighborhood Groups,
two public informational meetings and up to three City Council Work Sessions.
Preparation of up to three project newsletters - SRF is to prepare up to 700 copies of each
newsletter and distribute via U.S. Mail based on electronic mailing/distribution list to be
prepared by City of St. Louis Park.
Development of material for the City website - graphics/text for initial information and
two updates.
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
As mentioned earlier in this report, SRF developed a planning guide last year to aid the City in
the development of this project. The SRF planning guide proposes four phases to move this
project to the construction stage. The project schedule has been updated to reflect the recently
completed Phase I work and the Phase II work proposed above. The attached Project Schedule
(Updated March 2007) provides the basic steps in each of the four phases along with a project
timeline.
NEXT STEPS:
To meet the project schedule, Phase II activities should be commenced immediately. Staff will
be requesting Council approval on April 9th of an agreement with SRF to provide engineering
services associated with Phase II activities. The amount of this contract is estimated at this time
to be $117,000.
Attachments: Attachment “A” - Study Summary, Tables, and figure 4 from SRF’s Final
Report dated March 15, 2007 (Supplement)
Attachment “B” – Project Schedule (Updated March 2007) (Supplement)
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 10 - Sewer Back-Up Program Update
Page 1
10. Sewer Back-Up Program Update Administrative Services/Finance
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
This report is to update the City Council on the status on the Sewer back-up program.
BACKGROUND:
Council gave staff direction to put the details in place to administer a sewer back-up program for
our residents. We have been working with LMCIT (League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust) and will bring the program to Council for formal adoption on May 21, 2007.
We continue to follow Council direction from the previous discussions while working on the
details of this program. When we implement the program, we need to make sure that we have a
policy that will treat residents fairly and ensure that claims are handled in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, working out the details took longer than we anticipated, including dealing with
some unexpected risk and liability matters.
When we initially reviewed this program with LMCIT, they were not able to provide adequate
coverage to the maximum Council desired - $40,000. When we informed LMCIT of our plan,
they raised concerns about conflict of interest and the duty to defend liability claims. In a
discussion on May 8, LMCIT agreed to work with us to expand the top limitation from $10,000
to $40,000. Also, after further discussion, we were able to resolve the possible conflict of
interested concerns which was one main reason for the delay in final adoption of this program.
UPDATE - MEETING WITH LMCIT – THE DETAILS:
On Tuesday May 8, staff met with Pete Tritz, LMCIT Administrator. After discussion, we were
pleased to find out that LMCIT is willing to make some policy modifications and provide us with
a quote for coverage regarding a rider for sewer back-up. We are very interested in having the
LMCIT provide this coverage.
We anticipate the policy through LMCIT will run as follows:
• Program would be “no fault” if all of the following conditions apply: the sewer back-up
resulted from a condition in the “city’s” sewer system and the sewer back-up was not the
result of an obstruction or other condition in sewer pipes or lines which are not part of the
“city’s” sewer system or which are not owned or maintained by the “city”, and the sewer
back-up was not caused by or related to a catastrophic incident. (Catastrophic incident
means any of the following: any weather-related or other event for which FEMA
assistance is available; any interruption in the electric power supply to the “city”s” sewer
system or lift station which continues more than 72 hours; or rainfall which exceeds the
amount determined by the National Weather Service to constitute a 100-year storm event.
Comment: We feel that this is appropriate to address this type of catastrophic situation.
In discussions with staff, we determined that it would be very unusual to be in this
situation in St. Louis Park.
• LMCIT will not pay for any damages or expenses which are or would be covered under a
National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance policy, whether or not such insurance
is in effect; or for which the property owner has been reimbursed or is eligible to be
reimbursed by any homeowner or other property insurance.
St. Louis Park City Council Study Session
Written Report: 051407 - 10 - Sewer Back-Up Program Update
Page 2
• Pay out is $40,000 maximum. (For example, if there is no homeowner insurance,
payment starts with the first dollar; if homeowner has a policy up to $5,000, policy kicks
in at $5,001. In both cases, the maximum pay out to the property owner is $40,000.
(LMCIT policy starts where homeowner policy ends or if no policy, starts at first dollar)
Comment: This is better coverage than previously discussed.
• LMCIT will administer the program for the city. Comment: Although there is a
premium cost to run this program, it is helpful to have the additional resources needed to
manage this program. Using LMCIT staff will ensure consistent handling of claims in a
timely manner.
• Claims are limited to one per year. (Discussed previously limitation of one time per
owner.) Comment: This is standard in the LMCIT program and is better coverage than
previously discussed.
• Coverage is for any property. (Previously discussed limitation to residential only.)
Comment: Again, this is standard in the LMCIT program and is better coverage than
previously discussed. We do not believe we have major liability with non-residential
back-up issues.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION:
This program is subject to our deductible and we will pay LMCIT for the policy. The annual
premium cost for limits up to $10,000 was approximately $13,000. LMCIT is calculating the
additional premium cost to extend this coverage to $40,000, but we do not expect the cost to
increase substantially. Funds for this coverage are available in our current budget. Claims paid
out under this program will be subject to the City’s deductible.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROGRAM:
We are working with LMCIT on the effective date of the program. Our other liability coverage
has an April 1 renewal date. If it is approved with an effective date of April 1, we will be able to
have LMCIT go back to this date and administer the program. We also have an understanding
that LMCIT can go back to January 1, 2007 to determine losses for several other claims for the
City. However, these payments will be solely at the cost of the city.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff and Council are very interested in moving ahead with this program. We are pleased that
LMCIT is willing to make modifications to better fit our program needs and look forward to
obtaining formal documentation. Our next steps are:
1. City receives formal quote from LMCIT on program the week of May 14.
2. Program formally adopted by Council as a consent item on May 21.
3. City staff and LMCIT work with property owners who may be eligible for this coverage
back to January 1, 2007 to get claims processed.
Prepared and reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director and
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director