Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020/06/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA JUNE 15, 2020 All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Additionally, in accordance with Gov. Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056, city facilities will remain closed to the public until further notice. Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the June 15, 2020 city council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can monitor meeting by video and audio at https://bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859, or CenturyLink SD channel 8117 and HD channel 8617 ) or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members and staff participating from multiple locations. Members of the public wishing to address the city council regarding items on the agenda should call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. (4a – 4g) Consent agenda items – 952.562.2886 (5a) Appointment of representatives to boards and commissions – 952.562.2887 (8a) Union Park Flats redevelopment – 952-562-2888 (8b) Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) – 952.562.2886 If you wish to provide public comment, please call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments will be taken during each item in the order they are received. Public comments must relate to an item on the current city council agenda. 5:45 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Discussion items 1. 5:45 p.m. CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review 6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1.Call to order 2.Roll call 3.Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 5.Reports 5a. Extensions to preliminary development and loan agreements - Sherman Associates Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution approving the second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the EDA, city, and Sherman Associates and approval of the first amendment to loan agreement relative to the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. 7.New business – None Meeting of June 15, 2020 City council agenda 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. Comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the year ended December 31, 2019 3. Approval of minutes 3a. LBAE minutes of April 27, 2020 3b. City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar Recommended action: **Motion to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) Consent calendar 4a. Adopt Resolutions approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding documents for Southeast Bikeways (4018-2000) and restricting parking on segments of Wooddale Avenue. 4b. Adopt Resolutions approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding documents for Dakota South Bikeways (4019-2000) and restricting parking on segments of Dakota Avenue. 4c. • Adopt Ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and authorize publication. • Adopt Resolution to impose fees. • Authorize execution of contract for private development and any other related documents, by the mayor and city manager, between the city and the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and resolution. 4d. Adopt Resolution approving the second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the EDA, city, and Sherman Associates relative to the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. 4e. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $67,109.65 for project no. 4018-1000 pavement management (Area 6) with Northdale Construction Company, Contract No. 47-18. 4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the city’s participation in local performance measurement program. 4g. Accept for filing planning commission minutes of May 20, 2020. 5. Boards and commissions 5a. Appointment of representatives to boards and commissions Recommended action: Motion to appoint representatives to the boards and commissions as listed in exhibit A. 6. Public hearings – None Meeting of June 15, 2020 City council agenda 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Union Park Flats redevelopment Recommended action: • Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 4 affirmative votes as Councilmember Mavity announced she will recuse herself); and • Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Unity Village Apartments (requires 4 affirmative votes); and • Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding resolutions 6996 and 87-135 relating to property located at 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue (requires 4 affirmative votes); and • Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 17 to the zoning code and amending the zoning map from R-3 two-family residence to PUD 17, and set the second reading for July 6, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) 8b. Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving the conditional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 9. Communications – None **NOTE: The consent calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a councilmember or a member of the public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after noon on Friday on the city’s website. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525. Meeting: Special study session Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Discussion item: 1 Executive Summary Title: Comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive** •No action required. The information in this report will assist with the study session discussion. Policy consideration: What additional information may the council want relative to the 2019 CAFR? Summary: The city is required to have an independent audit each year in which the audit firm issues an opinion on the financial statements. The city received a “clean” audit opinion, or unmodified opinion, which means that Redpath and Company believe the financial statements present fairly in all material respects, the financial position of the city as of December 31, 2019. David J. Mol, partner from Redpath and Company, will present the information and provide key financial points to the city council. Once the city council reviews the CAFR for 2019, it will be submitted to the office of the state auditor as required and also submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to be considered for the Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting certificate program for which the City of St. Louis Park has been recognized for 36 consecutive years. Financial or budget considerations: This report shows the City of St. Louis Park continues to remain in strong financial condition. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Communication with those charged with governance Auditor’s report on internal control Minnesota legal compliance report Comprehensive annual financial report Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN, 55101 www.redpathcpas.com COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota for the year ended December 31, 2019. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated January 15, 2020. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Matters Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2019. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were management’s estimates of the Actuarial Accrued Liability related to OPEB, net pension liability, pension and OPEB related deferred inflows and outflows of resources, pension and OPEB expense and value of land held for resale. Management’s estimates relating to the Actuarial Accrued Liability related to OPEB, net pension liability, pension and OPEB related Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 2 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 2 deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and pension and OPEB expense are based on actuarial studies. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosure affecting the financial statements was the disclosure of Defined Benefit Pension Plans in Note 7 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note 16 – Subsequent Events and Uncertainties to the financial statements. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. There were no uncorrected misstatements that have an effect on our opinion of the financial statements. Audit procedures identified one material adjustment to the financial statements. This was for a non-routine transaction relating to a court settlement on the acquisition of land. The court settlement was completed after year-end but prior to the financial statements being issued. Accounting standards require the settlement amount to be reported as a 2019 expenditure even though the settlement was paid in 2020. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 3 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 3 Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated June 9, 2020. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the management discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison information, Schedule of OPEB Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedules of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability, the Schedules of Pension Contributions, and the Notes to Required Supplementary Information, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. We were engaged to report on the combining fund financial statements and schedules, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 4 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 4 complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We are not engaged to report on the introductory and statistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Restriction on Use This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s City Council and management and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota June 9, 2020 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 5 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN, 55101 www.redpathcpas.com INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Management City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 9, 2020. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 6 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Page 2 Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota June 9, 2020 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 7 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN, 55101 www.redpathcpas.com MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 9, 2020. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing selections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we preformed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s noncompliance with the above referenced provisions, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly. This communication is not suitable for any other purpose. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota June 9, 2020 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 8 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 Thomas Harmening – City Manager Prepared by: Finance Division Member of the Government Finance Officers’ Association Of the United States and Canada Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 9 - This page intentionally left blank - Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 10 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal 3 Certificate of Achievement 9 Services Chart 11 Officials of the City of St. Louis Park 13 II. FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 17 Management's Discussion and Analysis 21 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position Statement 1 39 Statement of Activities Statement 2 40 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds Statement 3 41 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds Statement 4 42 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities Statement 5 43 Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 6 44 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 7 45 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds Statement 8 46 Notes to Financial Statements 49 Required Supplementary Information: Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund Statement 9 94 Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Statement 10 99 Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - General Employees Retirement Fund Statement 11 100 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 11 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. Schedule of Pension Contributions - General Employees Retirement Fund Statement 12 101 Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Statement 13 102 Schedule of Pension Contributions - Public Employees Police and Fire Fund Statement 14 103 Notes to RSI 105 Combining Fund Statements and Schedules: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 15 117 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 16 118 Special Revenue Funds: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 17 121 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 18 122 Capital Projects Funds: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Capital Projects Funds Statement 19 125 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Capital Projects Funds Statement 20 126 Debt Service Funds: Combining Balance Sheet - Debt Service Funds Statement 21 128 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Major Debt Service Funds Statement 22 131 Redevelopment District Funds: Combining Balance Sheet - Redevelopment District Funds Statement 23 136 Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Major Redevelopment District Funds Statement 24 140 Internal Service Funds: Combining Statement of Net Position Statement 25 146 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position Statement 26 147 Combining Statement of Cash Flows Statement 27 148 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 12 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Reference No. III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Financial Trends: Net Position by Component Table 1 152 Changes in Net Position Table 2 154 Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source Table 3 159 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Table 4 160 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Table 5 162 Revenue Capacity: Assessed Value/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of all Taxable Property Table 6 164 Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments Table 7 166 Principal Property Taxpayers Table 8 168 Property Tax Levies and Collections Table 9 169 Debt Capacity: Ratios of Outstanding Debt By Type Table 10 170 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding Table 11 171 Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt Table 12 173 Legal Debt Margin Information Table 13 174 Pledged Revenue Bond Coverage Table 14 176 Demographic and Economic Information: Demographic Statistics Table 15 177 Principal Employers Table 16 179 Operating Information: Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Function Table 17 180 Operating Indicators by Function Table 18 182 Capital Asset Statistics by Function Table 19 183 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 13 - This page intentionally left blank - Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 14 I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION 1 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 15 - This page intentionally left blank - 2 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 16 St. Louis Park City Hall • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 June 9, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Minnesota statutes require all cities to issue an annual report on its financial position and activity prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants, or the Office of the State Auditor. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the comprehensive annual financial report of the City of St. Louis Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City of St. Louis Park. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City of St. Louis Park established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation for the City of St. Louis Park’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City of St. Louis Park’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects. The City of St. Louis Park’s financial statements have been aud ited by Redpath and Company Ltd., a firm of licensed certified public accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of St. Louis Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, are free of any material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of St. Louis Park’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report. 3 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 17 St. Louis Park City Hall • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) immediately follows the independent auditor’s report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. Profile of the Government The City of St. Louis Park, established in 1886, is a first ring community located immediately west of Minneapolis. Thanks to its convenient location, St. Louis Park combines all the cultural amenities of a large metropolitan area with small town friendliness. The City of St. Louis Park currently occupies a land area of 10.8 square miles and serves a population of 48,910. The City of St. Louis Park is empowered to levy a property tax on both r eal and personal properties located within its boundaries. While it also is empowered by state statutes to extend its corporate limits by annexation, St. Louis Park is a completely developed community and is bordered on all sides by other incorporated communities. St. Louis Park operates under the council/manager form of government. Policy-making and legislative authority are vested in a City Council consisting of a mayor, two at-large council members, and four ward council members. The City Council is responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the council, for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the City government, and for appointing the heads of the various departments. The council is elected on a non-partisan basis. Council members serve four-year staggered terms. The City of St. Louis Park provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; redevelopment, the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure; water, sewer, storm water, and refuse services, as well as recreational activities and cultural events. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of St. Louis Park’s financial planning and control. All departments and agencies of the City of St. Louis Park submit requests for appropriation to the City Manager in June of each year. The City Manager uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The City Manager then presents this proposed budget to the council for review prior to adoption of a preliminary tax levy by September 30. The council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed budget and to adopt a final budget no later than December 28. 4 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 18 St. Louis Park City Hall • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, (e.g. General), function (e.g., public safety), and department (e.g., police). Department directors may make transfers of appropriation within a department, but not between personnel and non-personnel categories. Transfers of appropriations between funds, however, require the approval of the City Council. Budget to actual comparisons are provided in this report for the general fund for which an appropriated annual budget has been adopted. These comparisons are presented starting on page 94 as part of the basic financial statements for the governmental funds. Factors Affecting Financial Condition The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City of St. Louis Park operates. Local economy The City of St. Louis Park currently enjoys a durable economic environment and local indicators point to continued stability versus other communities in the Twin City Metro Area. The City of St. Louis Park has a well-diversified tax base, with a sizeable full valuation that includes retail, manufacturing, and health care components, as well as diverse housing stock. Redevelopment, development, and reinvestment efforts remain very strong in St Louis Park. Redevelopment/Development The City of St. Louis Park is committed to evaluating, preserving, and improving the housing stock available within the community. It is important that a wide variety of housing alternatives be available within the community. Redevelopment projects over the past ten years have provided a mix of apartment, co-op, condominium, town-home, and single family units. Many of these housing developments contain a commercial component including both retail and services to support the new housing and create more livable neighborhoods. The City has used its tax increment financing authority in many of these projects in order to meet specific community and economic development objectives. Some of the larger projects include: Bridgewater Corporate Center Bridgewater Bank redeveloped an obsolete strip mall at the corner of Monterey Avenue and Excelsior Blvd with a four-story, 84,000 square foot class A office building. The project includes 57,000 square feet of bank offices, a 7,000 square foot bank branch, 7,000 square feet of commercial/restaurant space and three levels of structured parking. 5 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 19 St. Louis Park City Hall • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 10 West End 10 West End is phase IV of the Central Park West Redevelopment project. It is an eleven story, 343,000 square foot Class A office building, with 3,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 5,000 square feet of shared outdoor amenity space and a 1,214 stall parking structure. Elan West End Elan West End is Phase II of the Central Park West Redevelopment project at 1325 Utica Ave S. Elan West End is a six-story apartment building with 164 residential units adjacent to Central Park West and the AC Hotel by Marriott. The development includes five affordable units at 60 percent area median income. Urban Park Apartments Phase II Urban Park Apartments, located at 3601 Phillips Parkway, is the second apartment building in the project and consists of 61 market rate apartments, two community rooms and a fitness center. A pool and improved outdoor amenity space will also be added as part of the project. The Elmwood The Elmwood, located at 5605 W. 36th St., is a five story, 70-unit mixed-use, mixed-income senior development (53 market and 17 affordable units) with 4,400 square feet of leasable ground floor office/commercial space. The City also sponsors a comprehensive rehabilitation loan program available to single-family and multi-family homeowners. The first programs were started in the mid 1970’s and have evolved into a comprehensive set of programs to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the City’s housing stock. Finally, the City has a Convention and Visitors Bureau, which markets the desirability of St. Louis Park for both business and recreational opportunities. This continues to be a very strong partner with the City of St. Louis Park which has brought increased business and activities to the City. Long-term Financial Planning The City maintains a 10 year Long Range Financial Management Plan that incorporates anticipated revenues, expenditures, capital outlay, and tax impacts for all relevant funds. The plan anticipates opportunities or challenges, allows for changes to then be made, with the goal of achieving long-term sustainability. The plan is used in conjunction with the annual budget process and Capital Improvement Plan, which then allows the City Council to evaluate various budget decisions prior to adoption. This plan has proven its value by playing a significant role in maintaining the City’s AAA bond rating from Standard & Poor’s, which assists in keeping the costsof borrowing for the City of St. Louis Park at a low rate. 6 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 20 Awards The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of St. Louis Park for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. This was the thirty-sixth consecutive year that the government received this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. The report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. Acknowledgements The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the Finance Division and other key City of St. Louis Park personnel. We would like to express our appreciation to all members of the organization who assisted and contributed to the preparation of the report. Credit also must be given to the Mayor and the City Council for their unfailing support for maintaining the highest standards of professionalism in the management of the City of St. Louis Park’s finances. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Harmening City Manager 7 St. Louis Park City Hall • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2500 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 21 - This page intentionally left blank - 8 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 22 Govern m ent Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of St. Louis Park Minnesota For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2018 Executive Director/CEO 9 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 23 - This page intentionally left blank - 10 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 24 SERVICES CHART Citizens City Council City Manager Boards & Commissions Board of Zoning Appeals Human Rights Planning Police Advisory Fire Civil Service Parks & Recreation Telecommunications Advisory Environment & Sustainability Multicultural Advisory Group ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Records General Admin Human Resources Payroll Racial Equity & Inclusion Elections City Clerk Finance Assessing Public Art COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning/Zoning Economic Development Housing INFORMATION RESOURCES Cable Television Technology Services Support Services WEB Communications & Marketing Building & Energy Code Enforcement Building Point of Sale Facility Maintenance Licensing Sustainability OPERATIONS & RECREATION Rec Ctr & Programs Nature Center Environmental Parks Fleet Utility Operations Streets/Traffic Refuse/Recycling Organics POLICE Patrol Support Services Crime Prevention 911 Dispatch Animal Control Community Policing ENGINEERING Engineering Projects Storm Water Sidewalk/Trail projects Pavement FIRE Fire Prevention Fire Suppression EMS/Rescue Emergency Preparedness Education & Inspection Auditors Legal Charter Commission Economic Development Authority Housing Authority 11 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 25 - This page intentionally left blank - 12 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 26 OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Council Jake Spano Mayor EDA Commissioner Term Expires 1/2020 Steve Hallfin At-Large A Councilmember EDA President Term Expires 1/2020 Thom Miller At-Large B Councilmember EDA Commissioner Term Expires 1/2020 Margaret Rog Ward 1 Councilmember EDA Treasurer Term Expires 1/2022 Anne Mavity Ward 2 Councilmember EDA Commissioner Term Expires 1/2022 Rachel Harris Ward 3 Councilmember EDA Commissioner Term Expires 1/2022 Tim Brausen Ward 4 Councilmember EDA Vice President Term Expires 1/2022 Executive Staff Thomas Harmening, City Manager Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director Mike Harcey, Police Chief Steve Koering, Fire Chief Karen Barton, Community Development Director Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director Timothy Simon, Chief Financial Officer Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Cindy Walsh, Operations & Recreation Director 13 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 27 - This page intentionally left blank - 14 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 28 II. FINANCIAL SECTION 15 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 29 - This page intentionally left blank - 16 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 30 55 5th Street East, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN, 55101 www.redpathcpas.com INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business- type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. 17 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 31 We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Opinions In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2019, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison, Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedules of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability, the Schedules of Pension Contributions, and the Notes to the Required Supplementary Information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 18 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 32 Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining fund financial statements and schedules, and statistical section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining fund financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, are fairly stated in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 9, 2020, on our consideration of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD. St. Paul, Minnesota June 9, 2020 19 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 33 - This page intentionally left blank - 20 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 34 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of St. Louis Park, we offer readers of the City’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which starts on page 3 of this report. Financial Highlights The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $171,206,692 (net position). Of this amount, $18,364,462 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. The City’s total net position decreased by $5,155,214 as a result of expenses in excess of revenues. $2,076,369 was a result of an increase of net position within business-type activities, and $7,231,583 from a decrease of net position within governmental activities. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $74,184,533, an increase of $15,188,152 in comparison with the prior year. The increase was primarily related to the issuance of bonds. Approximately 38 percent of this total amount, $28,618,951 is either nonspendable or restricted for specific purposes. The remaining fund balance was committed by City Council, assigned or unassigned. At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance for the General fund was $18,762,374 (45percent) of the total subsequent year budgeted General fund expenditures. The City’s total bonded debt increased $26,855,000 during 2019. New debt issued, and principal paid during the year was $32,005,000 and $5,150,000 respectively. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplemental information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. The following chart on page 22 shows how the various parts of this annual report are arranged and related to one another. The financial statements also include notes that explain some of the information in the financial statements and provide more detailed data. The statements are followed by a section of combining fund financial statements and schedules that further explains and supports the information in the financial statements. Figure 1 shows how the required parts of this annual report are arranged and relate to one another. In addition to these required elements, we have included a section with combining fund financial statements and schedules that provide details about nonmajor governmental funds, which are added together and presented in single columns in the basic financial statements. Internal service funds 21 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 35 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis statements are also included, reflecting balances prior to their elimination from the government-wide financial statements, to avoid “doubling-up” effect within the governmental and business-type activities columns of said statements. 22 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 36 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Figure 2 summarizes the major features of the City’s financial statements, including the portion of the City government they cover and the types of information they contain. The remainder of this overview section of management’s discussion and analysis explains the structure and contents of each of the statements. Government-wide Statements Governmental Funds Proprietary Funds Scope Entire City government and the City’s component units The activities of the City that are not proprietary, such as police, fire and parks Activities the City operates similar to private businesses, such as the water and sewer system Required financial statements • Statement of Net Position • Statement of Activities • Balance Sheet • Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances • Statement of Net Position • Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position • Statement of Cash Flows Accounting basis and measurement focus Accrual accounting and economic resources focus Modified accrual accounting and current financial resources focus Accrual accounting and economic resources focus Type of asset/liability information All assets and liabilities, both financial and capital, and short-term and long-term Only assets expected to be used up and liabilities that come due during the year or soon thereafter; no capital assets included All assets and liabilities, both financial and capital, and short-term and long-term Type of deferred outflows/inflows of resources information All deferred outflows/inflows of resources, regardless of when cash is received or paid Only deferred outflows of resources expected to be used up and deferred inflows of resources that come due during the year or soon thereafter; no capital assets included All deferred outflows/inflows of resources, regardless of when cash is received or paid Type of inflow/outflow information All revenues and expenses during the year, regardless of when cash is received or paid Revenues for which cash is received during or soon after the end of the year; expenditures when goods or services have been received and payment is due during the year or soon thereafter All revenues and expenses during the year, regardless of when cash is received or paid Fund Financial Statements Figure 2 Major features of the Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements 23 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 37 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Government-wide financial statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The statement of net position presents information on all of the City’s assets and deferred outflows of resources and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the government’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in the statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenue (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public information, operations and recreation, engineering, housing and rehabilitation, housing maintenance, social and economic development, and interest on long-term debt. The business-type activities of the City include water, sewer, solid waste, and storm water operations. The government-wide financial statements include not only the City itself (known as the primary government), but also a legally separate Economic Development Authority (EDA) for which the City is financially accountable. Financial information for this component unit is not reported separately from the financial information presented for the primary government itself. The government-wide financial statements start on page 39 of this report. Fund financial statements – A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds. Governmental funds – Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on 24 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 38 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains seven individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General Fund, Housing Rehabilitation, Debt Service, Development EDA, Redevelopment District, Streets Capital Projects, and Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other ten governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts annual appropriated budgets for the General Fund. Budgetary comparison statements are provided for the General Fund to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements start on page 41 of this report. Proprietary funds – The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer, solid waste, and storm water operations. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the water, sewer, solid waste and storm water operations, all of which are considered to be major funds of the City. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City’s various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for maintaining its fleet of vehicles, management information systems, replacement of City equipment, employee benefits, compensated absences, pension benefit and uninsured losses. Because all of these services predominately benefit governmental rather than business-type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the governmental-wide financial statements. All internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. 25 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 39 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis The basic proprietary fund financial statements start on page 44 of this report. Notes to the financial statements – The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements start on page 49 of this report. Other Supplementary Information - In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, Required Supplementary Information, presents a detailed budgetary comparison schedule for the General Fund to demonstrate compliance with the budget. In accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement No. 75, it also includes other post- employment benefit plan schedule of changes in total OPEB liability and related ratios. In accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement No. 68, also included is defined benefit pension plan information: a) schedules of the City’s contributions and b) schedules of the City’s proportionate share of net pension liability. These schedules can be found in the Required Supplementary Information section of this report. The combining statements and schedules referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds and internal service funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information starting on page 94 of this report. Government-wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. In the case of the City, assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $171,206,692 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. A portion of the City’s net position (76 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. 26 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 40 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis City of St. Louis Park’s Net Position Increase Increase 2019 2018 (Decrease) 2019 2018 (Decrease) Assets Current and other assets 99,904,951$ 83,718,324$ 16,186,627$ 12,846,723$ 11,425,279$ 1,421,444$ Capital assets 149,334,573 141,268,586 8,065,987 49,978,011 43,327,483 6,650,528 Total assets 249,239,524 224,986,910 24,252,614 62,824,734 54,752,762 8,071,972 Total deferred outflows of resources 12,367,362 13,978,083 (1,610,721) - - - Liabilities Other liabilities 12,775,662 10,706,234 2,069,428 1,665,609 2,268,442 (602,833) Noncurrent liabilities 95,299,784 65,520,989 29,778,795 26,926,472 20,328,036 6,598,436 Total liabilities 108,075,446 76,227,223 31,848,223 28,592,081 22,596,478 5,995,603 Total deferred inflows of resources 16,557,401 18,532,148 (1,974,747) - - - Net position Net investment in capital assets 102,644,391 107,090,668 (4,446,277) 27,805,955 25,992,377 1,813,578 Restricted 22,391,884 13,200,855 9,191,029 - - - Unrestricted 11,937,764 23,914,099 (11,976,335) 6,426,698 6,163,907 262,791 Total net position 136,974,039$ 144,205,622$ (7,231,583)$ 34,232,653$ 32,156,284$ 2,076,369$ Governmental Activities Business-type Activities An additional portion of the City’s net position $22,391,884 represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position $18,364,462 may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the City as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. 27 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 41 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Analysis of the City’s Operations – The following table provides a summary of the City’s operations for the year ended December 31, 2019. Overall, both the governmental and business-type activities revenue and expenses remained stable. Governmental activities decreased the City’s net position by $7,231,583. Business-type activities increased the City’s net position by $2,076,369. City of St. Louis Park’s Changes in Net Position Increase Increase 2019 2018 (Decrease) 2019 2018 (Decrease) Revenues Program revenues Charges for services 9,386,456$ 8,765,915$ 620,541$ 21,141,348$ 20,066,320$ 1,075,028$ Operating grants and contributions 3,360,346 2,666,090 694,256 196,100 174,250 21,850 Capital grants and contributions 2,693,816 3,526,377 (832,561) 556,508 429,928 126,580 General revenues Property taxes and TIF 45,593,759 43,715,743 1,878,016 - - - Franchise fees 1,074,002 3,804,678 (2,730,676) - - - Lodging taxes 4,212,728 1,021,855 3,190,873 - - - Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 319,322 618,645 (299,323) - - - Unrestricted investment earnings 1,669,916 739,130 930,786 271,026 159,537 111,489 Gain on disposal of capital assets 178,509 1,751,339 (1,572,830) - - - Miscellaneous 1,619,458 491,591 1,127,867 - - - Total revenues 70,108,312 67,101,363 3,006,949 22,164,982 20,830,035 1,334,947 Expenses General government 12,022,082$ 11,051,775 970,307 - - - Public safety 18,868,900 17,621,109 1,247,791 - - - Public information 594,521 642,350 (47,829) - - - Operations 20,692,741 7,491,753 13,200,988 - - - Parks and recreation 7,463,862 15,146,290 (7,682,428) - - - Housing and rehabilitation 2,011,975 530,192 1,481,783 - - - Housing maintenance 89,828 19,768 70,060 - - - Social and economic development 15,526,279 12,549,378 2,976,901 - - - Interest on long-term debt 2,139,962 1,456,241 683,721 - - - Water - - - 5,922,733 5,445,760 476,973 Sewer - - - 6,387,860 6,083,196 304,664 Solid waste - - - 3,527,810 3,463,412 64,398 Storm water - - - 2,179,955 2,372,829 (192,874) Total expenses 79,410,150 66,508,856 12,901,294 18,018,358 17,365,197 653,161 Increase (decrease) in net position before transfers (9,301,838) 592,507 (9,894,345) 4,146,624 3,464,838 681,786 Transfers 2,070,255 2,004,593 65,662 (2,070,255) (2,004,593) (65,662) Change in net position (7,231,583) 2,597,100 (9,828,683) 2,076,369 1,460,245 616,124 Net position, January 1 144,205,622 141,608,522 2,597,100 32,156,284 30,696,039 1,460,245 Net position, December 31 136,974,039$ 144,205,622$ (7,231,583)$ 34,232,653$ 32,156,284$ 2,076,369$ Governmental Activities Business-type Activities 28 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 42 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Governmental Activities Governmental activities decreased the City’s net position by $7,231,583. Overall the governmental activities in 2019 were stable, with a slight increase in both revenues and expenses. Revenues increased by $3.0 million, primarily related lodging tax general revenues, while expenses increased by $12 million, with the largest increase in operations ($13.2 million) and the largest decrease in parks and recreation ($7.7 million) due to maintenance projects. Business-type Activities Business-type activities increased the City’s net position by $2,076,369. Revenues increased by $1.3 million, expenses increased $585 thousand, and net transfers were comparable to prior year. The increase in revenues was the result of increased utility rates and the increase in expenses was a result of increased operating expenses to provide services. Governmental Activities Revenues - The following chart illustrates the City’s revenue by source for its governmental activities: Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities 29 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 43 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Expenses - The following chart illustrates the City’s expenses and program revenues for its governmental activities: Expenses and Program Revenues - Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Revenues - The following chart illustrates the City’s revenue by source for its business-type activities: Revenue Sources - Business-type Activities 30 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 44 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Expenses - The following chart illustrates the City’s expenses and program revenues for its business-type activities: Expense and Program Revenues - Business-type Activities Financial Analysis of the Government’s Funds As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the year. 31 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 45 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Governmental funds – As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $74,184,533 an increase of $15,188,152 in comparison with the prior year. Approximately 15 percent of this total amount, $11,451,542, constitutes unassigned fund balance, which is available for spending at the City’s discretion. The remainder of fund balance ($62,732,991) is not available for new spending because it is either 1) nonspendable ($347,046), 2) restricted ($28,271,905), 3) committed ($913,497) or 4) assigned ($33,200,543) for specific purposes. Increase 2019 2018 (Decrease) General 20,831,827$ 19,254,384$ 1,577,443$ Housing Rehabilitation 5,751,062$ 5,193,532$ 557,530$ Debt Service 13,443,508$ 3,738,092$ 9,705,416$ Development EDA 21,949,658$ 24,888,020$ (2,938,362)$ Redevelopment District 3,992,143$ 1,737,245$ 2,254,898$ Streets Capital Projects (1,760,551)$ (1,403,203)$ 357,348$ Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project 5,259,677$ (1,086,169)$ 6,345,846$ Fund Balances December 31, Major Funds The Redevelopment District fund is comprised of all tax increment districts in the City. The increase in fund balance of $2,254,898 is due to collection of property taxes and tax increments in excess of expenditures and transfers out. The fund balance of the Debt Service fund increased $9,705,416 due tocurrent refunding bonds issued for which the payment on the refunded bonds occurred after year-end. The Development EDA fund balance decreased $2,938,362 as a result of project expenditures. Although the fund has $21 million in fund balance, approximately $9.7 million is made up of loans receivable and land held for resale. The City’s General Fund balanced increased $1,577,443 during the current fiscal year. Greater than anticipated revenues in licenses and permits of $1,161,235 contributed to the majority of the increase. The Housing Rehabilitation fund balance increased $557,350 as a result of special assessment and miscellaneous revenues exceeding expenditures by $737,917 prior to net transfers out of $181,000. The Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction fund is used to account for the construction of a new nature center. The fund balance increased as a result of unspent bond proceeds. The Street Capital Projects fund balance increased $357,348 as a result of receiving state aids, transfers in, and the issuance of bonds to support on- going projects. 32 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 46 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis Proprietary funds – The City’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. At the end of the year, unrestricted net position of the Water, Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water funds amounted to $6,426,698. Total net position increased by $2,076,369. This increase was primarily a result of a planned increase in fees to cover infrastructure replacement. General Fund Budgetary Highlights Actual revenues were $1,779,274 over budget and expenditures were $457,750 under budget; along with transfers and other financing sources, the end result was an increase in fund balance of $1,671,697. Favorable revenue and expenditure variances accounted for the increase in fund balance. The largest favorable revenue variance was in licenses and permits ($1,161,235). The largest favorable expenditure variance was in the general government function ($305,430). Capital Asset and Debt Administration The City’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2019 was $199,312,584 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings and system improvements, machinery and equipment, park facilities, roads, highways, and bridges. The total increase in the City’s investment in capital assets for the current fiscal year was 8.0 percent. Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: Westwood Hills Nature Center project Street Rehab projects Connect the park trail, sidewalk and bike improvements Completion of Wooddale Bridge widening project For the year ending December 31, 2019, the City has elected to use the modified approach as defined in GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting for its Pavement Management Program, which includes streets. Under GASB Statement No. 34, eligible infrastructure capital assets are not required to be depreciated under the following requirements: 1)The City manages the eligible infrastructure capital assets using an asset management system with characteristics of (a) an up to-date inventory; (b) perform condition assessments and summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (c) estimate annual amount to maintain and preserve at the established condition assessment level. 2)The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level. 33 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 47 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City’s policy is to achieve an average rating of good (70) for all streets. Over the course of 2015, 2017 and 2019, all areas were assessed, providing a new overall condition rating. Going forward, two areas will be assessed every year. The City increased the number of areas and frequency assessed each year to get more comparative data and more thoroughly analyze the street infrastructure system. As of the last complete assessment, the City’s street system was rated at an Overall Condition Index (OCI) of 62.44 which is slightly below the City’s policy level. The city has developed a 10 year capital improvement plan that is expected to increase this number to the policy level. This plan includes the pavement rehabilitation for commercial and industrial roads that were not a part of the plan in the past and performing mill and overlay as an additional maintenance strategy. The City’s streets are constantly deteriorating resulting from the following factors: (1) traffic using the system; (2) the sun’s ultra-violet rays drying out and breaking down the top layer of pavement; (3) utility company/private development trenching operations; (4) water damage from natural precipitation; and (5) frost heave. The City is continuously taking actions to prolong the life of the system through short-term maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, and mill and overlay. The City expended $5,379,721 on street maintenance for the year ending December 31, 2019. The physical condition assessment completed in 2012 was the first assessment that reported on the entire system. The City has estimated that the amount of annual expenditures required maintaining the City’s street system at the average OCI rating of good is approximately $4,399,000. The annual expenditures will vary from year to year, depending on the area of the City being targeted that year. The estimate for the year ending December 31, 2019 of $4,848,000 was lower than the actual expenditures during the year of $5,379,721 by approximately $1 million. This was a result of the planning to increase the annual improvements to get condition back to policy level. 34 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 48 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis City of St. Louis Park’s Capital Assets (net of accumulated depreciation) Increase Increase 2019 2018 (Decrease) 2019 2018 (Decrease) Land 16,991,835$ 16,991,835$ -$ 515,083$ 515,083$ -$ Permanent easments 1,429,976 1,429,976 - - - - Buildings and structures 38,688,258 39,920,316 (1,232,058) 174,413 301,850 (127,437) Improvements other than buildings 25,760,723 25,925,478 (164,755) 3,340,272 3,611,066 (270,794) Machinery and equipment 5,357,417 4,396,460 960,957 4,700,714 5,124,355 (423,641) Fleet 5,300,186 6,564,770 (1,264,584) - - - Infrastructure - Streets 26,011,544 26,011,544 - - - - Infrastructure - Other 21,207,296 15,845,445 5,361,851 37,124,628 33,775,129 3,349,499 Construction in progress 8,587,338 4,182,762 4,404,576 4,122,901 - 4,122,901 Total 149,334,573$ 141,268,586$ 8,065,987$ 49,978,011$ 43,327,483$ 6,650,528$ Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 on pages 65-66 of this report. Debt administration At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $88,560,000. Of this amount, $59,620,000 comprises debt issued for improvement and capital projects, of which $11,165,000 will be repaid by ad valorem tax levies and $3,170,000 will be repaid through the collection of special assessments. In addition, $2,560,000 is general obligation tax increment debt which financed redevelopment projects and will be repaid from the tax increments resulting from increased tax capacity of the redevelopment properties. The remaining $26,380,000 of the City’s bonded debt represents general obligation revenue bonds with $24,900,000 to be repaid by the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water fund user charges and $1,480,000 from revenues collected from the benefitting property. Furthermore, the City has long-term debt of $121,005 for capital leases payable, $4,027,810 for compensated absences, $3,823,756 for other postemployment benefits payable and $21,343,936 for the net pension liability. 35 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 49 City of St. Louis Park Management’s Discussion and Analysis City of St. Louis Park’s Outstanding Debt General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds, and other Debt Increase Increase 2019 2018 (Decrease) 2019 2018 (Decrease) G.O. Improvement 56,450,000$ 28,975,000$ 27,475,000$ 24,900,000$ 19,475,000$ 5,425,000$ G.O. Tax Increment 2,560,000 2,995,000 (435,000) - - - G.O. Special Assessment 3,170,000 3,315,000 (145,000) - - - G.O. Revenue Bonds 1,480,000 1,520,000 (40,000) - - - Bond issuance premium/discount 2,323,277 445,293 1,877,984 1,853,981 677,443 1,176,538 Capital leases 121,005 180,382 (59,377) - - - Compensated absences 4,027,810 4,095,604 (67,794) 172,491 175,593 (3,102) Other postemployment benefits 3,823,756 3,500,643 323,113 - - - Net pension liability 21,343,936 20,494,066 849,870 - - - Total 95,299,784$ 65,520,988$ 29,778,796$ 26,926,472$ 20,328,036$ 6,598,436$ Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Principal payments during 2019 totaled $7,245,000. The City maintains an “AAA” rating from Standard & Poor’s for general obligation debt. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a governmental entity may issue to 3 percent of its total assessed valuation. The current debt limitation for the City is $216,158,715 which is significantly more than the City’s outstanding general obligation debt. Additional information on the City’s long-term debt can be found in Note 6 on pages 67-72 of this report. Economic Factors, Subsequent Year Budgets, Rates and Changes in Structure The City estimates that the demand for City services will continue to grow as the economy improves. The property tax levy is set annually and is adjusted as necessary to fund the cost of providing services to our citizens and customers. Charges for services are evaluated each year and adjusted to support operations and capital outlay. All of these factors were considered in preparing the City’s budget for the 2020 fiscal year. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, customers, and creditors with a general overview of the City of St. Louis Park’s finances and to show the City’s accountability for the resources it is entrusted. Questions concerning any of the information provided in the report, or requests for additional financial information, can be directed to the City of St. Louis Park Finance Department at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 55416, 952-924-2500. 36 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 50 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 37 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 51 - This page intentionally left blank - 38 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 52 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 1 December 31, 2019 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Totals Assets Cash and investments 73,240,426$ 9,250,676$ 82,491,102$ Accrued interest receivable 115,032 - 115,032 Due from other governments 2,483,108 17,209 2,500,317 Accounts receivable 1,704,458 4,306,840 6,011,298 Taxes receivable 359,022 - 359,022 Prepaid items 663,018 33,939 696,957 Inventories - 43,788 43,788 Deposits receivable 227,677 700 228,377 Internal balances 1,668,866 (1,668,866) - Special assessments receivable 5,596,391 862,437 6,458,828 Loans receivable 8,795,903 - 8,795,903 Pledges receivable 1,150,000 - 1,150,000 Land held for resale 3,901,050 - 3,901,050 Capital assets Nondepreciable assets 53,020,693 4,637,983 57,658,676 Depreciable assets (net of accumulated depreciation)96,313,880 45,340,028 141,653,908 Total assets 249,239,524 62,824,734 312,064,258 Deferred outflows of resources Related to pensions 12,038,538 - 12,038,538 Related to OPEB 328,824 - 328,824 Total deferred outflows of resources 12,367,362 - 12,367,362 Liabilities Accounts payable 2,326,508 456,514 2,783,022 Salaries payable 2,145,931 160,763 2,306,694 Due to other governments 548,423 73,412 621,835 Contracts payable 3,488,518 237,690 3,726,208 Accrued interest payable 985,235 233,784 1,219,019 Deposits payable 2,090,466 138,746 2,229,212 Unearned revenue 1,190,581 364,700 1,555,281 Noncurrent liabilities Due within one year 14,850,346 2,177,119 17,027,465 Due in more than one year 80,449,438 24,749,353 105,198,791 Total liabilities 108,075,446 28,592,081 136,667,527 Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions Related to pensions 16,406,789 - 16,406,789 Related to OPEB 150,612 - 150,612 Total deferred outflows of resources 16,557,401 - 16,557,401 Net position Net investment in capital assets 102,644,391 27,805,955 130,450,346 Restricted for Economic development 6,135,339 - 6,135,339 Affordable housing 4,515 - 4,515 E-911 purposes 107,683 - 107,683 Fire Donations 19,000 - 19,000 Community development 510,241 - 510,241 Debt service 13,942,465 - 13,942,465 Cable TV equipment 262,666 - 262,666 Police and fire purposes 1,409,975 - 1,409,975 Unrestricted 11,937,764 6,426,698 18,364,462 Total net position 136,974,039$ 34,232,653$ 171,206,692$ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 39 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 53 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Statement 2 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Operating Capital Charges For Grants and Grants and Governmental Business-Type Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total Governmental activities General government 12,022,082$ 1,231,454$ 97,870$ -$ (10,692,758)$ -$ (10,692,758)$ Public safety 18,868,900 5,212,202 1,134,495 55,227 (12,466,976) - (12,466,976) Public information 594,521 - - - (594,521) - (594,521) Operations 20,692,741 2,566,014 258,582 - (17,868,145) - (17,868,145) Parks and recreation 7,463,862 156,330 635,524 1,920,928 (4,751,080) - (4,751,080) Housing and rehabilitation 1,001,834 3,467 60,000 224,657 (713,710) - (713,710) Housing maintenance 89,828 - - - (89,828) - (89,828) Social and economic development 16,536,420 216,989 946,454 444,190 (14,928,787) - (14,928,787) Interest on long-term debt 2,139,962 - 227,421 48,814 (1,863,727) - (1,863,727) Total governmental activities 79,410,150 9,386,456 3,360,346 2,693,816 (63,969,532) - (63,969,532) Business-Type activities Water 5,922,733 6,908,538 - 533,576 - 1,519,381 1,519,381 Sewer 6,387,860 7,634,597 6,872 22,932 - 1,276,541 1,276,541 Solid waste 3,527,810 3,538,931 189,228 - - 200,349 200,349 Storm water 2,179,955 3,059,282 - - - 879,327 879,327 Total business-type activities 18,018,358 21,141,348 196,100 556,508 - 3,875,598 3,875,598 Total 97,428,508$ 30,527,804$ 3,556,446$ 3,250,324$ (63,969,532) 3,875,598 (60,093,934) General revenues Taxes Property taxes 34,566,143 - 34,566,143 Tax increment 11,027,616 - 11,027,616 Franchise taxes 4,212,728 - 4,212,728 Lodging taxes 1,074,002 - 1,074,002 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 319,322 - 319,322 Unrestricted investment earnings 1,669,916 271,026 1,940,942 Gain on sale of capital assets 178,509 - 178,509 Miscellaneous 1,619,458 - 1,619,458 Transfers 2,070,255 (2,070,255) - Total general revenues and transfers 56,737,949 (1,799,229) 54,938,720 Change in net position (7,231,583) 2,076,369 (5,155,214) Net position - January 1 144,205,622 32,156,284 176,361,906 Net position - December 31 136,974,039$ 34,232,653$ 171,206,692$ Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position Program Revenues The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 40 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 54 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET Statement 3 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2019 Special Revenue Fund General Housing Rehabilitation Debt Service Development EDA Redevelopment District Streets Capital Projects Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project Other Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds Assets Cash and investments 25,146,113$ 2,065,845$ 13,710,469$ 12,329,641$ 7,197,849$ -$ 7,947,022$ 3,493,742$ 71,890,681$ Accrued interest receivable 115,032 - - - - - - - 115,032 Due from other governments 272,694 - 74,130 - - 1,934,086 157,278 22,351 2,460,539 Accounts receivable 452,605 74,432 - 13,482 - 14,620 - 1,149,043 1,704,182 Taxes receivable - unremitted - - - - 30,211 - - - 30,211 Taxes receivable - delinquent 317,264 - - - 11,547 - - - 328,811 Prepaid items 112,570 - - 299 - - - 6,500 119,369 Inventories 227,677 - - - - - - - 227,677 Special assessments receivable - delinquent - 18,415 - - - - - 4,748 23,163 Special assessments receivable - deferred - 4,742,373 - - - - - 830,855 5,573,228 Interfund loan receivable - - - 3,512,883 - - - - 3,512,883 Loans receivable - current - - 45,000 1,233,186 - - - - 1,278,186 Loans receivable - noncurrent - 3,447,313 1,435,000 1,385,745 756,604 - - 493,055 7,517,717 Pledges receivable - current - - - - - - - 100,000 100,000 Pledges receivable - noncurrent - - - - - - - 1,050,000 1,050,000 Land held for resale - 249,000 - 3,652,050 - - - - 3,901,050 Total assets 26,643,955$ 10,597,378$ 15,264,599$ 22,127,286$ 7,996,211$ 1,948,706$ 8,104,300$ 7,150,294$ 99,832,729$ Liabilities Accounts payable 682,131$ 50,058$ 150$ 124,988$ 13,332$ 1,123,020$ 141,224$ 65,989$ 2,200,892$ Salaries payable 2,080,178 6,434 - 17,344 - - - 25,275 2,129,231 Due to other governments 60,949 27,518 - 12,139 352,708 2,793 - 63,064 519,171 Contracts payable - 1,519 - - - 426,843 2,703,399 356,757 3,488,518 Due to other funds - - - - - 1,799,253 - - 1,799,253 Interfund loan payable - - - - 3,512,883 - - - 3,512,883 Deposits payable 1,761,880 - 328,586 - - - - - 2,090,466 Unearned revenue 909,726 - 12,355 23,157 - - - 245,343 1,190,581 Total liabilities 5,494,864 85,529 341,091 177,628 3,878,923 3,351,909 2,844,623 756,428 16,930,995 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue 317,264 4,760,787 1,480,000 - 125,145 - - 2,034,005 8,717,201 Fund balances Nonspendable 340,247 - - 299 - - - 6,500 347,046 Restricted 126,683 - 13,443,508 - 6,010,191 - 5,089,375 3,602,148 28,271,905 Committed - 39,775 - 241,193 - - - 632,529 913,497 Assigned 1,602,523 5,711,287 - 21,708,166 - - 170,302 4,008,265 33,200,543 Unassigned 18,762,374 - - - (2,018,048) (1,403,203) - (3,889,581) 11,451,542 Total fund balances 20,831,827 5,751,062 13,443,508 21,949,658 3,992,143 (1,403,203) 5,259,677 4,359,861 74,184,533 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 26,643,955$ 10,597,378$ 15,264,599$ 22,127,286$ 7,996,211$ 1,948,706$ 8,104,300$ 7,150,294$ 99,832,729$ Total Fund balances reported above 74,184,533$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds 128,716,111 Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-period expenditures and, therefore, are reported as unavailable revenue in the funds: Receivables not available soon enough to pay for the current period's expenditures 8,717,201 Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds: Bonds payable and unamortized bond premium (65,983,277) Accrued interest payable (985,235) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of certain services to individual funds. The assets and liabilities are included in the governmental statement of net position (7,675,294) Net position of governmental activities 136,974,039$ Capital Projects Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 41 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 55 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 4 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Special Revenue Fund General Housing Rehabilitation Debt Service Development EDA Redevelopment District Streets Capital Projects Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project Other Governmental Funds Total Governmental Funds Revenues Property taxes 27,028,744$ 100,000$ 3,420,557$ 19,835$ 1,218,880$ -$ -$ 810,000$ 32,598,016$ Tax increments - - - - 11,368,332 - - - 11,368,332 Abatement of property taxes (94,254) - - - (246,462) - - - (340,716) Franchise taxes - - - - - - - 4,212,728 4,212,728 Lodging tax - - - 1,074,002 - - - - 1,074,002 License and permits 5,264,659 - ----- -5,264,659 Intergovernmental 1,760,714 - 267,420 1,172,453 - 1,920,928 157,278 104,702 5,383,495 Charges for services 3,617,152 3,467 - 192,774 - -- 34,065 3,847,458 Fines and forfeits 274,339 - - - - - - - 274,339 Special assessments - 763,989 48,814 - - - - 370,705 1,183,508 Interest income 523,124 45,501 197,000 340,429 83,193 28,833 170,304 228,251 1,616,635 Miscellaneous 120,201 620,970 119,342 219,542 - - - 621,403 1,701,458 Total revenues 38,494,679 1,533,927 4,053,133 3,019,035 12,423,943 1,949,761 327,582 6,381,854 68,183,914 Expenditures Current General government 9,372,448 - - - - - - - 9,372,448 Public safety 17,543,217 - - - - - - 107,834 17,651,051 Public information - - - - - - - 477,150 477,150 Operations 5,192,198 - - - - - - 9,256,534 14,448,732 Parks and recreation 6,401,978 - - - - - - 169,757 6,571,735 Housing and rehabilitation - 796,010 - - - - - - 796,010 Housing maintenance - - - - - - - 60,315 60,315 Social and economic development - - 368,075 6,289,163 8,439,075 - - 299,957 15,396,270 Miscellaneous 26,282 - - - - - - - 26,282 Capital outlay Public safety 93,819 - - - - - - 180,556 274,375 Public information - - - - - - - 18,323 18,323 Operations - - - - - 7,126,576 - 11,011 7,137,587 Parks and recreation - - - - - -6,328,512 1,550,776 7,879,288 Social and economic development - - - 1,547,891 - -- - 1,547,891 Debt service Principal - - 2,990,000 - - - - - 2,990,000 Interest and other - - 1,300,175 - 168,445 - - - 1,468,620 Bond issuance costs - - 126,857 11,455 - 38,645 109,931 23,057 309,945 Total expenditures 38,629,942 796,010 4,785,107 7,848,509 8,607,520 7,165,221 6,438,443 12,155,270 86,426,022 Revenues over (under) expenditures (135,263) 737,917 (731,974) (4,829,474) 3,816,423 (5,215,460) (6,110,861) (5,773,416) (18,242,108) Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 2,012,706 160,000 1,260,865 - - 690,750 - - 4,124,321 Transfers out (300,000) (340,387) - (40,000) (1,561,525) - - (262,536) (2,504,448) Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - (2,160,000) - - - - - (2,160,000) Refunding bonds issued - - 9,785,000 - - - - - 9,785,000 Bonds issued - - 440,567 1,801,460 - 4,690,000 12,153,051 3,134,923 22,220,001 Premium on bonds issued - - 1,110,958 129,652 - 192,058 303,656 229,062 1,965,386 Total other financing sources (uses)1,712,706 (180,387) 10,437,390 1,891,112 (1,561,525) 5,572,808 12,456,707 3,101,449 33,430,260 Net change in fund balances 1,577,443 557,530 9,705,416 (2,938,362) 2,254,898 357,348 6,345,846 (2,671,967) 15,188,152 Fund balances - January 1 19,254,384 5,193,532 3,738,092 24,888,020 1,737,245 (1,760,551) (1,086,169) 7,031,828 58,996,381 Fund balances - December 31 20,831,827$ 5,751,062$ 13,443,508$ 21,949,658$ 3,992,143$ (1,403,203)$ 5,259,677$ 4,359,861$ 74,184,533$ Capital Projects Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 42 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 56 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 5 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities (Statement 2) are different because: Net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds (Statement 4)15,188,152$ Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlays exceeded depreciation in the current period. Capital outlay 16,857,464 Capital outlay not capitalized (4,886,787) Depreciation expense (3,941,383) The issuance of long-term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net position. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amounts are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities. Proceeds from long term debt (32,005,001) Principal repayments on long term debt 5,150,000 Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the amount reported in the governmental fund because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due, and thus requires the use of current financial resources. In the statement of activities, however, interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due.(441,567) Governmental funds report debt issuance premiums and discounts as an other financing source or use at the time of issuance. Premiums and discounts are reported as an unamortized asset or liability in the City-wide financial statements.(1,877,982) Certain revenues are recognized as soon as they are earned. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting certain revenues cannot be recognized until they are available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Special assessments (636,619) Property taxes 50,427 Pledges (82,000) Loans (40,000) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs for equipment, information system, equipment replacement, employee benefits and major losses incurred by individual funds. The net revenue of certain activities of internal service funds is reported with governmental activities.(566,287) Change in net position of governmental activities (Statement 2)(7,231,583)$ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 43 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 57 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 6 PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2019 Governmental Activities Non-Major Fund Internal Water Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Totals Service Funds Assets Current assets Cash and investments 4,013,261$ 2,804,820$ 719,010$ 1,713,585$ 9,250,676$ 1,349,745$ Due from other governments - - 17,209 - 17,209 22,569 Accounts receivable 1,583,321 1,416,421 495,350 811,748 4,306,840 276 Prepaid items 11,313 11,313 - 11,313 33,939 543,649 Deposits receivable 700 - - - 700 - Inventories 43,788 - - - 43,788 - Special assessments receivable - delinquent 85,219 216 - - 85,435 - Special assessments receivable - deferred 585,283 191,719 - - 777,002 - Due from other funds - - 1,799,253 - 1,799,253 - Total current assets 6,322,885 4,424,489 3,030,822 2,536,646 16,314,842 1,916,239 Noncurrent assets Capital assets, at cost Land 114,844 60,000 340,239 - 515,083 818,094 Buildings and structures 4,761,612 6,111 - - 4,767,723 9,451,756 Improvements other than buildings 951,045 22,278 6,182,215 - 7,155,538 2,517,832 Infrastructure 27,092,899 21,198,582 20,530,331 - 68,821,812 1,313,801 Machinery, furniture and equipment 8,677,710 262,040 89,099 - 9,028,849 9,387,687 Fleet - - - - - 10,414,604 Construction in progress 2,223,446 610,808 1,288,647 - 4,122,901 193,950 Total capital assets, at cost 43,821,556 22,159,819 28,430,531 - 94,411,906 34,097,724 Less: accumulated depreciation (17,241,003) (16,456,417) (10,736,475) - 188,308,729 (13,479,262) Total noncurrent assets 26,580,553 5,703,402 17,694,056 - 282,720,635 20,618,462 Total assets 32,903,438 10,127,891 20,724,878 2,536,646 299,035,477 22,534,701 Deferred outflows of resources Related to pensions - - - - - 12,038,538 Related to OPEB - - - - - 328,824 Total deferred outflows of resources - - - - - 12,367,362 Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 110,317 88,993 45,497 211,707 456,514 125,616 Salaries payable 79,856 39,833 22,952 18,122 160,763 - Accrued flex spending - - - - - 16,700 Due to other governments 13,109 3,351 - 56,952 73,412 29,252 Contracts payable 224,319 13,371 - - 237,690 - Deposits payable 39,163 - 99,583 - 138,746 - Accrued interest payable 195,077 27,517 11,190 - 233,784 - Compensated absences payable - current 43,745 49,968 13,195 5,211 112,119 2,661,698 Capital lease payable - current - - - - - 59,378 Bonds payable - current 1,760,650 133,000 171,350 - 2,065,000 - Unearned revenue 364,700 - - - 364,700 - Total current liabilities 2,830,936 356,033 363,767 291,992 3,842,728 2,892,644 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences payable 23,555 26,906 7,105 2,806 60,372 1,366,112 Capital lease payable - - - - - 61,627 Bonds payable 20,489,241 2,177,518 2,022,222 - 24,688,981 - Other postemployment benefits payable - - - - - 3,609,486 Net pension liability - - - - - 21,343,936 Total noncurrent liabilities 20,512,796 2,204,424 2,029,327 2,806 24,749,353 26,381,161 Total liabilities 23,343,732 2,560,457 2,393,094 294,798 28,592,081 29,273,805 Deferred inflows of resources Related to pensions - - - - - 16,406,789 Related to OPEB - - - - - 150,612 Total deferred inflows of resources - - - - - 16,557,401 Net position Net investment in capital assets 8,647,632 3,657,839 15,500,484 - 27,805,955 20,497,457 Unrestricted 912,074 3,909,595 2,831,300 2,241,848 9,894,817 (31,640,870) Total net position 9,559,706$ 7,567,434$ 18,331,784$ 2,241,848$ 37,700,772 (11,143,413)$ Adjustment to reflect consolidation of Internal Service fund activities (3,468,119) Net position of business-type activities 34,232,653$ Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 44 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 58 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND Statement 7 CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Governmental Activities Non-Major Fund Internal Water Sewer Storm Water Solid Waste Total Service Funds Operating revenues Charges for services 6,385,026$ 7,634,597$ 3,059,282$ 3,537,351$ 20,616,256$ 4,154,848$ Other 47,401 - - 1,580 48,981 372,674 Rent 476,111 - - - 476,111 - Total operating revenues 6,908,538 7,634,597 3,059,282 3,538,931 21,141,348 4,527,522 Operating expenses Personal services 1,459,477 879,477 628,077 541,191 3,508,222 4,497,397 Supplies 351,822 18,963 5,585 114,096 490,466 722,942 Professional services 515,495 342,015 85,186 20,986 963,682 153,547 Insurance 24,079 53,762 7,867 5,026 90,734 184,688 Utilities 407,023 48,774 42,660 - 498,457 - Repairs and maintenance 1,234,819 216,918 123,343 - 1,575,080 - Depreciation 997,758 133,105 635,918 - 1,766,781 1,964,595 Disposal charges 5,673 4,268,178 - 2,668,594 6,942,445 - Other 385,773 273,611 469,469 161,108 1,289,961 881,018 Total operating expenses 5,381,919 6,234,803 1,998,105 3,511,001 17,125,828 8,404,187 Operating income (loss)1,526,619 1,399,794 1,061,177 27,930 4,015,520 (3,876,665) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Interest income 45,432 86,991 92,478 46,125 271,026 53,281 Property taxes - - - - - 1,917,700 Intergovernmental revenue - 6,872 - 189,228 196,100 483,100 Miscellaneous expense (11,347) - (120,562) - (131,909) - Amortization of bond premiums 50,350 16,470 5,150 - 71,970 - Gain on disposal of capital assets - - - - - 178,509 Interest expense (439,877) (66,703) (19,313) - (525,893) (7,234) Bond issuance costs (57,690) - (14,368) - (72,058) - Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)(413,132) 43,630 (56,615) 235,353 (190,764) 2,625,356 Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 1,113,487 1,443,424 1,004,562 263,283 3,824,756 (1,251,309) Capital contributions Connection fees and special assessments 533,576 22,932 - - 556,508 - Capital assets - - - - - 15,478 Transfers in - - - - - 434,904 Transfers out (620,789) (876,244) (332,165) (241,057) (2,070,255) - Change in net position 1,026,274 590,112 672,397 22,226 2,311,009 (800,927) Net position - January 1 8,533,432 6,977,322 17,659,387 2,219,622 35,389,763 (10,342,486) Net position - December 31 9,559,706$ 7,567,434$ 18,331,784$ 2,241,848$ 37,700,772$ (11,143,413)$ Change in net position as reported above 2,311,009 Adjustment to reflect consolidation of Internal Service fund activities (234,640) Change in net position of business-type activities 2,076,369$ Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 45 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 59 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 8 PROPRIETARY FUNDS Page 1 of 2 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Governmental Activities Non-Major Fund Internal Water Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Total Service Funds Cash flows from operating activities Receipts from customers and users 6,776,306$ 7,589,894$ 3,462,085$ 3,026,269$ 20,854,554$ -$ Receipts from interfund services provided - - - - - 4,154,848 Other operating cash receipts 47,401 - 1,580 - 48,981 372,674 Payments to suppliers (3,385,315) (5,176,581) (2,960,723) (868,994) (12,391,613) (2,769,546) Payments to employees (1,456,931) (878,128) (545,183) (623,450) (3,503,692) (3,980,017) Miscellaneous expense (11,346) - - (120,562) (131,908) - Net cash flows provided (used) by operating activities 1,970,115 1,535,185 (42,241) 1,413,263 4,876,322 (2,222,041) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities Transfers out (586,308) (814,609) (207,331) (298,439) (1,906,687) - Property taxes - - - - - 1,917,700 Cash loaned to other funds - - - (1,799,253) (1,799,253) - Intergovernmental receipts - 6,872 189,228 - 196,100 461,490 Net cash flows provided (used) by noncapital financing activities (586,308) (807,737) (18,103) (2,097,692) (3,509,840) 2,379,190 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities Transfers in - - - - - 434,904 Transfers out (34,481) (61,635) (33,726) (33,726) (163,568) - Connection fees/special assessements received 533,576 22,932 - - 556,508 - Acquisition of capital assets (5,160,198) (610,809) - (2,646,303) (8,417,310) (2,213,576) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - - 403,644 Proceeds from issuance of bonds, net 7,055,174 - - 1,641,276 8,696,450 - Principal paid Bonds (1,789,800) (137,500) - (167,700) (2,095,000) - Capital lease - - - - - (59,377) Interest paid Bonds (455,361) (73,759) - (14,268) (543,388) - Capital lease - - - - - (7,234) Net cash flows provided (used) by capital and related financing activities 148,910 (860,771) (33,726) (1,220,721) (1,966,308) (1,441,639) Cash flows from investing activities Interest received 49,236 91,478 50,997 102,266 293,977 58,986 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 1,581,953 (41,845) (43,073) (1,802,884) (305,849) (1,225,504) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 2,431,308 2,846,665 1,756,658 2,521,894 9,556,525 2,360,979 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 4,013,261$ 2,804,820$ 1,713,585$ 719,010$ 9,250,676$ 1,135,475$ Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 46 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 60 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 8 PROPRIETARY FUNDS Page 2 of 2 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Governmental Activities Non-Major Fund Internal Water Sewer Solid Waste Storm Water Totals Service Funds Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Operating income (loss)1,526,619$ 1,399,794$ 27,930$ 1,061,177$ 4,015,520$ (3,876,665)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities Miscellaneous expense (11,346) - - (120,562) (131,908) - Depreciation 997,758 133,105 - 635,918 1,766,781 1,964,595 (Increase) decrease in assets/deferred outflows Accounts receivable (102,447) (70,854) (75,266) (39,701) (288,268) - Special assessments 85,840 26,151 - - 111,991 - Prepaid items (2,187) (2,187) (2,187) - (6,561) (55,958) Inventories (2,793) - - - (2,793) - Deferred outflows of resources - - - - - 1,610,721 Increase (decrease) in liabilities/deferred inflows Accounts payable (118,148) 39,708 1,877 5,933 (70,630) (731,932) Due to other governments (82,315) (5,252) 9,397 (139,617) (217,787) (39,461) Contracts payable (255,188) 13,371 - (1,200) (243,017) - Deposits payable 1,203 - - 6,688 7,891 - Accrued salaries payable 7,350 (184) (3,141) 3,607 7,632 - Unearned revenue (69,427) - - - (69,427) - Accrued flex spending - - - - - (9,513) Compensated absences payable (4,804) 1,533 (851) 1,020 (3,102) (67,794) Other postemployment benefits - - - - - 108,843 Net pension liability - - - - - 849,870 Deferred inflows of resources - - - - - (1,974,747) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities 1,970,115$ 1,535,185$ (42,241)$ 1,413,263$ 4,876,322$ (2,222,041)$ Noncash capital and related financing activities Amortization of bond premiums 50,350$ 16,470$ -$ 5,150$ 71,970$ -$ Disposal of capital assets - - - - - 1,291,037 Business-Type Activities Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 47 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 61 - This page intentionally left blank - 48 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 62 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the City) was incorporated in 1886 and operates a council-manager form of government under the “Home Rule Charter” concept according to applicable Minnesota laws and statutes. The governing body consists of a seven-member City Council elected by the voters of the City. The financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies. A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the reporting entity include those of the City (the primary government) and its component units, entities for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although legally separate entities, are in substance, part of the City’s operations and so data from these units are combined with data of the City. BLENDED COMPONENT UNITS The Economic Development Authority (EDA) is an entity legally separate from the City. However, for financial reporting purposes, the EDA is reported as if it were part of the City’s operations because the members of the City Council serve as EDA Board Members and the City has the ability to access EDA resources. Separate financial statements are not prepared for the EDA. The following funds are maintained by the EDA: Debt Service Funds –2008B General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, and Hoigaard’s 2010A & B TIF Notes; Capital Project Funds – Development EDA and Redevelopment District. RELATED ORGANIZATION The Housing Authority (HA) is an entity legally separate from the City. The HA is governed by a Board of Commissioners appointed by the City Council. However, the City’s accountability for the HA does not extend beyond making the appointments. B. GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the activities of the primary government and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business- type activity is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business-type activity. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business-type activity and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business-type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. 49 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 63 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenue, franchise taxes, licenses, and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. The City reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Housing Rehabilitation Fund is used to account for revenues from revenue bond fees and expenditures related to preventing deterioration of multi-unit housing. Debt Service Fund account for the resources accumulated and payments made for principal and interest on long-term general obligation debt of the government. The Development EDA Fund accounts for transactions related to redevelopment efforts in the City; financing is provided by investment income, grants, and developer reimbursements. The Redevelopment District Fund accounts for transactions relative to acquisition and development in the City’s tax increment redevelopment districts; financing is provided by the sale of general obligation tax increment bonds along with tax increment property tax payments. The Streets Capital Project Fund accounts for street construction projects. Revenues are provided by the General Fund for maintenance expenditures or by the issuance of general obligation bonds. 50 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 64 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 The Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project Fund is used to account for the construction of a new nature center. Revenues will be provided by the issuance of bonds. The City reports the following major enterprise funds: The Water Fund accounts for the provisions of water services to residents of the City. All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. The Sewer Fund accounts for the provisions of sewer services to residents of the City. All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. The Storm Water Fund accounts for the revenue and expenses related to providing storm water to the residents of the City. All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including administration, operations, construction, maintenance, billing and collection. The City reports the following non-major enterprise funds: The Solid Waste Fund accounts for the revenue and expense related to collection, disposal, and recycling of residential solid waste. Financing is provided by charging each property owner a predetermined service fee. Additionally, the government reports the following fund types: Internal Service Funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the City, or to other governments on a cost reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds account for employee benefits including postemployment benefits and pensions, uninsured loss, capital replacement. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the water, sewer, solid waste and storm water enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. 51 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 65 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 D. BUDGETARY INFORMATION Budgets are legally adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Annual appropriated budgets are legally adopted for the General Fund. A budget is not presented for the Housing Rehabilitation Fund since the City does not legally require to adopt a budget for the fund. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted, or as amended by the City Council. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appropriation, is not employed by the City because it is as present not considered necessary to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash management. E. LEGAL COMPLIANCE - BUDGETS The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. The City Council reviews the proposed budget and makes appropriate changes. 3. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 4. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution on a departmental/divisional basis and can be expended by each department based upon detailed budget estimates for individual expenditure accounts in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.05 of the City Charter. 5. After the budget resolution is approved, the City Council can increase the budget only by resolution if actual receipts exceed the estimated, or from accumulated fund balance in the amount of unexpended appropriations from the previous fiscal year. During the year 2019, the budget was not amended. 6. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for the General Fund. 7. Legal debt obligation indentures determine the appropriation level and debt service tax levies for the Debt Service Funds. Supplementary budgets are adopted for the Proprietary Funds to determine and calculate user charges. These debt service and budget amounts represent general obligation bond indenture provisions and net income for operation and capital maintenance and are not reflected in the financial statements. 8. A capital improvement program is reviewed annually by the City Council for the Capital Project Funds. However, appropriations for major projects are not adopted until the actual bid award of the improvement. The appropriations are not reflected in the financial statements. 9. The legal level of budgetary control is at the fund level. Expenditures may not legally exceed budgeted appropriations at the total fund level. The City Council must approve all expenditures at fund level either by resolution or through the disbursement process. 52 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 66 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 10. Monitoring of budgets is maintained at the expenditure category level (i.e., personal services, supplies, and other services and charges, and capital outlay) within each program. Management can exceed appropriations at the department level without City Council approval. Approval must be received for exceeding budgeted appropriations at the fund level. 11. The City Council may authorize transfer of budgeted amounts between City funds. F. CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in authorized investments. Investment income is allocated to individual funds on the basis of average monthly cash balances. The City’s investment policy dictates that the General fund is to receive the first three percent of all interest earnings as an administrative fee. The administrative fee does not apply to the Economic Development Authority. Investments are stated at fair value, based upon quoted market prices, except for investments in 2a7-like external investment pools, which are stated at amortized cost. Investment income is accrued at the balance sheet date. For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary Funds consider all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. All of the cash and investments allocated to the Proprietary Fund types have original maturities of 90 days or less. Therefore the entire balance in such fund types is considered cash equivalents. It is the City’s policy to invest in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. Safety of principal is the foremost objective, but liquidity and yield are also important considerations. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk by purchasing only highly rated securities with adequate collateral and interest rate risk by matching maturities to cash flow needs and holding securities to maturity. G. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Property taxes and special assessment receivables have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts (See Note 1 I and J). The City annually certifies delinquent water and sewer accounts to the County for collection in the following year. Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. H. INTERFUND RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either “due to/from other funds” (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or “interfund loan receivable/payable” (i.e., the noncurrent portion of interfund loans). Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business-type activities are reported in the government- wide financial statements as “internal balances.” 53 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 67 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 I. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 7 and December 2 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and taxes and credits not received at year end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January is fully offset by deferred inflow of resources because they are not available to finance current expenditures. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City’s property tax revenue includes payment from the Metropolitan Revenue Distribution (Fiscal Disparities Formula) per Minnesota Statute 473F. This statute provides a means of spreading a portion of the taxable valuation of commercial/industrial real property to various taxing authorities within the defined metropolitan area. The valuation “shared” is a portion of commercial/industrial property valuation growth since 1971. Property taxes paid to the City through this formula for 2019 totaled $2,481,990. Receipt of property taxes from this “fiscal disparities pool” does not increase or decrease total tax revenue. J. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale and the first proceeds of that sale (after costs, penalties and expenses of sale) are remitted to the City in payment of delinquent special assessments. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. 54 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 68 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funding are completely offset by deferred inflow of resources. K. INVENTORIES Inventory is valued at cost using the first-in, first out (FIFO) method. Inventory consists mainly of expendable supplies held for consumption. Inventories of the governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. L. PREPAID ITEMS Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items are reported using the consumption method and recorded as expenditures/expenses at the time of consumption. M. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment, infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), and intangible assets such as easements and computer software, are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the City as assets with an estimated useful life in excess of three years and an initial individual cost of more than the following: Land All Buildings $5,000 Other Improvements $25,000 Machinery and equipment $10,000 Vehicles $10,000 Infrastructure $250,000 Other assets $5,000 Construction in progress Accumulate all costs and capitalize if over $100,000 when completed Capitalization Threshold Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets, donated works of art and similar items, and capital assets received in a service concession arrangement are recorded at estimated acquisition value at the date of donation. The City uses the modified 55 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 69 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 approach for reporting street and trail system capital assets. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Property, plant and equipment of the primary government, as well as the component units, is depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings and structures 5 – 30 years Improvements other than buildings 5 – 30 years Infrastructure 5 – 100 years Machinery, furniture and equipment (including software) 3 – 30 years Fleet 3 – 25 years Temporary easements 3 – 5 years Capital assets of the water utility and sewer utility operations include the water distribution system and sewer collection system. These systems have been wholly (or substantially) financed by non-operating funds (special assessments, general taxes, federal and state grants, and other sources) and contribution to the Water and Sewer operating funds. City policy is to finance these assets by the sources indicated rather than by user charges. Accordingly, the water and sewer user rates are not established at levels sufficient to cover depreciation on these assets. The City implemented GASB 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets effective January 1, 2010, which required the City to capitalize and amortize intangible assets. Pursuant to GASB Statement No. 51, the retroactive reporting of permanent easements is not required and therefore, the City has elected not to report permanent easements acquired in years prior to 2010. The City had already accounted for computer software at historical cost and therefore retroactive reporting was not necessary. The City elects to use the modified approach as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting of its streets. The City conducted a physical assessment in the summer of 2017 of the condition of the streets. This condition assessment will be performed every 2 years. Each segment of City owned street was assigned a physical condition based on potential defects. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) was assigned to each segment. The index is expressed in a continuous scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is assigned to the least acceptable physical condition and 100 is assigned to those segments that have the characteristic of a new street. The following conditions were defined: Range Description 86 - 100 Excellent 71 - 85 Very good 56 - 70 Good 41 - 55 Fair 26 - 40 Poor 11 - 25 Very poor 0 - 10 Failed 56 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 70 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 The City’s policy relative to maintaining the street and trail assets is to achieve an average rating of “Good” for all segments. This acceptable rating allows minor cracking and patching of the pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to the users of the system. N. COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation, sick pay and flex leave benefits. No liability is recorded for unpaid accumulated sick leave, except for that portion that is payable as severance. All liabilities for vacation leave, flex leave and severance, both current and long-term, are recorded in the Employee Benefits Fund, an Internal Service Fund for governmental funds, and in the individual enterprise funds when incurred. The personnel ordinance limits the annual accumulation of benefits that can be accumulated from year-to-year. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. O. LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long- term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. P. FUND BALANCE CLASSIFICATIONS In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance in classifications that disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as follows: Nonspendable - consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items. Restricted - consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. Committed - consists of amounts that are constrained for specific purposes that are internally imposed by formal action (resolution) of the City Council. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless City Council removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action it employed to previously commit those amounts. Assigned - consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints reflect the specific purpose for which it is the City’s intended use. These constraints are established by the City Council and/or management. Pursuant to City Council Resolution, the City’s Chief Financial Officer and/or City Manager is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance. Unassigned - is the residual classification for the general fund and also reflects negative residual amounts in other funds. 57 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 71 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When committed, assigned or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned and 3) unassigned. Q. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. R. RECLASSIFICATIONS Certain amounts presented in the prior year data has been reclassified in order to be consistent with the current year’s presentation. S. NET POSITION Net position represents the difference between assets/deferred outflows and liabilities/deferred inflows. Net position is displayed in three components. a) Net investment in capital assets – consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets. b) Restricted net position – consist of net position restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, laws or regulations of other governments. c) Unrestricted net position – all other net position that do not meet the definition of “restricted” or “net investment in capital assets”. T. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. U. DEFERRED OUTFLOWS/INFLOWS OF RESOURCES In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources, represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then. The government has two items that qualify for reporting in this 58 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 72 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 category. They are the pension and OPEB related deferred outflows of resources reported in the government- wide statement of net position and the proprietary funds statement of net position. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The government has pension related deferred inflows of resources reported in the government-wide statement of net position and the proprietary funds statement of net position. The government also has a type of item, which arises only under a modified accrual basis of accounting, that qualifies for reporting in this category. Accordingly, the item, unavailable revenue, is reported only in the governmental fund balance sheet. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from the following sources: property taxes, special assessments, bond reimbursement payments not yet due and other miscellaneaous unavailable revenue. V. PENSION PLANS COST SHARING MULTIPLE – EMPLOYER PLANS For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA except that PERA’s fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Note 2 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS A. DEPOSITS In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the City Council, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City Treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Authorized collateral includes the following: 1. United States government treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds; 2. Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity; 3. General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; 4. General obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity; 5. Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank’s public debt is rated “AA” or better by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or 59 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 73 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Standard & Poor’s Corporation; and 6. Time deposits that are fully insured by any federal agency. Custodial Credit Risk - deposits – Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Minnesota Statutes require that insurance, surety bonds or collateral protect all City deposits. The fair value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. The City has no additional deposit policies addressing custodial credit risk. As of December 31, 2019, the bank balance of the City’s deposits was $2,468,402 all of which was covered by federal depository insurance or by collateral pledged and held in the City’s name. B. INVESTMENTS The City is authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 118A, and the City’s investment policy, to invest in the following: 1. Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage-backed securities defined as high risk. 2. Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above, general obligation tax-exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements, and is rated one of the two highest rating categories for money market funds by at least one nationally recognized rating organization. 3. State and local securities as follows: a) any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service; b) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; and c) a general obligation of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency which is a moral obligation of the State of Minnesota and is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating agency. 4. Bankers acceptance of United States banks. 5. Commercial paper, with a maturity of 270 days or less, issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. 60 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 74 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 At December 31, 2019, the City had the following investments and maturities: Fair Less Investment Type Rating Value Than 1 1-5 6-10 11-15 4M Fund NR 29,486,135$ 29,486,135$ -$ -$ -$ Money market funds NR 3,819,817 3,819,817 - - - Commercial paper A-1 12,960,910 12,960,910 - - - Brokered Certificates of Deposit NR 1,402,031 1,402,031 - - - Municipal Bonds A - AAA 2,320,868 1,002,420 1,318,448 - - US Treasury N/A 22,735,853 1,499,838 21,236,015 - - Federal National Mortgage Association N/A 4,171,150 1,248,838 2,922,312 - - Federal Home Loan Bank Notes N/A 4,107,424 1,905,484 2,201,940 - - Total 81,004,188$ 53,325,473$ 27,678,715$ -$ -$ Total investments 81,004,188$ Deposits 1,481,929 Petty cash 4,985 Total cash and investments 82,491,102$ Investment Maturities (in Years) The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. The hierarchy has three levels. Level 1 investments are valued using inputs that are based on quoted market prices. Level 2 investments are valued using inputs that are based on matrix pricing models. Level 3 investments are valued using inputs that are unobservable. The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31, 2019: Investment Type 12/31/2019 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Investments at fair value: Commercial paper 12,960,910$ -$ 12,960,910$ -$ Brokered Certificates of Deposit 1,402,031 - 1,402,031 - Municipal Bonds 2,320,868 - 2,320,868 - US Treasury 22,735,853 - 22,735,853 - Federal National Mortgage Association 4,171,150 - 4,171,150 - Federal Home Loan Bank Notes 4,107,424 - 4,107,424 - Total/Subtotal 47,698,236 -$ 47,698,236$ -$ Investments not categorized: External investment pool - 4M Fund 29,486,135 Money market funds 3,819,817 Total 81,004,188$ Fair Value Measurement Using 61 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 75 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 The City’s external investment pool investment is with the 4M Fund which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes and the Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. The 4M Fund is an unrated pool and the fair value of the position in the pool is the same as the value of pool shares. The pool is managed to maintain a portfolio weighted average maturity of no greater than 60 days and seeks to maintain a constant net asset value (NAV) per share of $1. The pool measures their investments in accordance with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 79, at amortized cost. The 4M Liquid Asset Fund has no redemption requirements. The 4M Plus Fund requires funds to be deposited for a minimum of 14 calendar days. Withdrawals prior to the 14-day restriction period are subject to a penalty equal to 7 days interest on the amount withdrawn. C. INVESTMENT RISKS Custodial credit risk – investments – For investments in securities, custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of failure of the counterparty to a transaction, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investment securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Investments in investment pools and money markets are not evidenced by securities that exist in physical or book entry form, and therefore are not subject to custodial credit risk disclosures. The City’s investment policy requires the City’s security broker/dealers to provide its audited financial statements, proof of NASD certification, proof of state registration, and certification of having read, understood and agreed to comply with the City’s investment policy. Investments in securities are held by the City’s broker-dealer of which $500,000 is insured through SIPC. Each broker-dealer has provided additional protection by providing additional insurance. This insurance is subject to aggregate limits applied to all of the broker-dealers accounts. Interest rate risk – Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates of debt investments could adversely affect the fair value of an investment. The City’s investment policy states the investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating and capital requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. The maximum maturity of investments shall not extend beyond five years, unless related to specific cash flow needs. Credit risk – Credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will be unable to fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. State law limits investments to commercial paper to those rated in the highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies; in any security of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service for general obligation and rated “AA” or better for a revenue obligation; a general obligation of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to those rated “A” or better by a national bond rating agency; mutual funds or money market funds whose investments are restricted to securities described in MS 118A.04. The City’s investment policy does not place further restrictions on investment options. Concentration of credit risk – Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss that may be attributed to the magnitude of a government’s investment in a single issuer. The City’s investment policy states no more than 50% of its investment portfolio can be invested in municipal bonds or MHFA securities. Investments in a single issuer exceeding 5% of the City’s overall cash and investment portfolio are in various holdings as follows: Federal National Mortgage Assn.5.15% Federal Home Loan Bank 5.07% US Treasury 28.07% 62 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 76 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 3 RECEIVABLES A. LOANS RECEIVABLE The City has made loans to local businesses and individuals that qualify for various loan programs. The businesses and individuals pay varying installments on the loans. Depending on the loan program, some of the loans are secured by an interest in the property. Also, some of the loans are forgivable after 30 years if certain criteria are met. As of December 31, 2019, any forgiveness of loans would not occur for another 20 – 30 years. At this time, information is not available to develop an estimate for any loans which may be forgiven. Therefore, no allowance has been recorded. As loan maturity dates approach, the City will evaluate whether an allowance for forgivable loans should be recorded in the financial statements. As of December 31, 2019, the loans receivable balance was $8,795,903. Significant receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31, 2019 are as follows: Special Interfund Loans Assessments Property Loans Pledges Receivable Receivable Taxes Receivable Receivable Total Major Funds: General Fund -$ -$ 285,537$ -$ -$ 285,537$ Housing Rehabilitation Fund 3,447,313 27,412 - - - 3,474,725 Debt Service Funds 1,435,000 - - - - 1,435,000 Development EDA Fund 1,385,745 - - 3,512,883 - 4,898,628 Redevelopment District Fund 756,604 - 10,393 - - 766,997 Water Fund - 65,894 - - - 65,894 Sewer Fund - 1,234 - - - 1,234 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 493,055 12,393 - - 1,050,000 1,555,448 Total 7,517,717$ 106,933$ 295,930$ 3,512,883$ 1,050,000$ 12,483,463$ 63 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 77 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 4 UNAVAILABLE REVENUE Governmental funds report deferred inflows of resources in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of unavailable revenue reported in the governmental funds were as follows: Unavailable Delinquent property taxes receivable (General Fund) 317,264$ Delinquent property taxes receivable (Redevelopment District) 11,547 Special assessments not yet due (Housing Rehabilitation) 4,760,787 Special assessments not yet due (Nonmajor Funds) 835,603 Bond reimbursement payments not yet due (Debt Service Funds) 1,480,000 Other miscellaneous (Redevelopment District) 113,598 Other miscellaneous (Nonmajor Funds) 1,198,402 Total unavailable revenue for governmental funds 8,717,201$ 64 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 78 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 5 CAPITAL ASSETS The City has elected to use the modified approach as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for reporting of street infrastructure. As a result, no accumulated depreciation or depreciation expense has been recorded for street infrastructure. Additional information of the modified approach is presented in the Notes to Required Supplementary Information section of this report. All other capital assets including other infrastructure systems were reported using the basic approach whereby accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense have been recorded. Modified approach adjustments represent the changes due to implementation of the modified approach for infrastructure reporting. Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2019 is as follows: Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Transfers Balance Governmental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land 16,991,835$ -$ -$ -$ 16,991,835$ Infrastructure - streets 26,011,544 - - - 26,011,544 Permanent easements 1,429,976 - - - 1,429,976 Construction in progress 4,182,762 11,337,008 6,932,432 - 8,587,338 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 48,616,117 11,337,008 6,932,432 - 53,020,693 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings and structures 56,471,752 153,849 - - 56,625,601 Improvements other than buildings 41,827,137 1,581,925 - - 43,409,062 Infrastructure 35,450,455 5,813,843 - - 41,264,298 Machinery, furniture and equipment 11,580,413 1,983,652 596,802 - 12,967,263 Fleet 11,052,118 260,213 699,610 - 10,612,721 Total capital assets, being depreciated 156,381,875 9,793,482 1,296,412 - 164,878,945 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 16,551,436 1,385,907 - - 17,937,343 Improvements other than buildings 15,901,659 1,746,680 - - 17,648,339 Infrastructure 19,095,078 961,924 - - 20,057,002 Machinery, furniture and equipment 7,183,953 860,796 434,903 - 7,609,846 Fleet 4,997,280 951,229 635,974 - 5,312,535 Total accumulated depreciation 63,729,406 5,906,536 1,070,877 - 68,565,065 Total capital assets being depreciated - net 92,652,469 3,886,946 225,535 - 96,313,880 Governmental activities capital assets - net 141,268,586$ 15,223,954$ 7,157,967$ -$ 149,334,573$ 65 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 79 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Transfers Balance Business-type activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land 515,083$ -$ -$ -$ 515,083$ Construction in progress - 8,417,309 4,294,408 - 4,122,901 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 515,083 8,417,309 4,294,408 - 4,637,984 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings and structures 4,767,723 - - - 4,767,723 Improvements other than buildings 7,155,538 - - - 7,155,538 Infrastructure 64,527,404 4,294,408 - - 68,821,812 Machinery, furniture and equipment 9,028,849 - - - 9,028,849 Total capital assets, being depreciated 85,479,514 4,294,408 - - 89,773,922 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 4,465,873 127,437 - - 4,593,310 Improvements other than buildings 3,544,472 270,794 - - 3,815,266 Infrastructure 30,752,276 944,908 - - 31,697,184 Machinery, furniture and equipment 3,904,493 423,642 - - 4,328,135 Total accumulated depreciation 42,667,114 1,766,781 - - 44,433,895 Total capital assets being depreciated - net 42,812,400 2,527,627 - - 45,340,027 Business-type activities capital assets - net 43,327,483$ 10,944,936$ 4,294,408$ -$ 49,978,011$ Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the primary government as follows: Governmental activities: General government 100,140$ Public safety 474,383 Engineering 8,393 Operations and recreation 3,172,464 Public information 56,552 Social and economic development 130,009 Internal service 1,964,595 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities 5,906,536$ Business-type activities: Water 997,758$ Sewer 133,105 Storm water 635,918 Total depreciation expense - business-type activities 1,766,781$ 66 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 80 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 6 CITY INDEBTEDNESS The City issues general obligation bonds, to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. The reporting entity’s long-term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business-type activities. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City. As of December 31, 2019, long-term debt of the City consisted of the following: Final Authorized Issue Maturity Interest And Outstanding Date Date Rates Issued 12/31/19 Governmental Activities: General Long-Term Debt: General Improvement Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2010D (BABS) 12/29/2010 2/1/2032 1.25 - 5.15% 13,025,000$ 9,200,000$ G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2014A 12/18/2014 2/1/2026 2.00% 5,070,000 3,650,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2016A 7/14/2016 2/1/2027 1.375 - 2.375% 10,000,000 8,645,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2017A 7/13/2017 2/1/2028 2.125 - 3% 3,430,000 3,130,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2018A 6/14/2018 2/1/2033 3.00 - 4.00% 2,020,000 2,020,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2019A 4/10/2019 2/1/2035 2.00 - 4.00% 22,220,000 22,220,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2019B 11/26/2019 2/1/2032 3.00 - 5.00% 7,585,000 7,585,000 Total General Improvement Bonds 63,350,000 56,450,000 Tax Increment Bonds: Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2008B 12/1/2008 2/1/2024 3.25 - 4.625% 5,490,000 2,560,000 G.O. Special Assessment Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2010A HIA 5/7/2010 2/1/2031 1.25 - 5.7% 3,105,000 - G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2012A HIA 10/17/2012 2/1/2033 0.75 - 3.90% 1,290,000 970,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2019C HIA 11/26/2019 2/1/2028 2.00 - 2.20% 2,200,000 2,200,000 Total G.O. Special Assessment Bonds 6,595,000 3,170,000 G.O. Revenue bonds: G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds Series 2010C 12/29/2010 2/1/2040 3.00 - 5.65% 1,770,000 1,480,000 Issuance premiums (discounts)N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,323,277 Total - bonded indebtedness 77,205,000 65,983,277 Capital lease payable - vehicles 5/1/2016 5/1/2021 4.53%222,149 121,005 Compensated absences payable N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,027,810 Total governmental activities 77,427,149 70,132,092 Business-Type Activities: General Obligation Revenue Bonds: Utility Crossover Refunding Bonds Series 2013A 7/10/2013 8/1/2023 1.0 - 1.9% 4,170,000 1,610,000 Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2014A 12/18/2014 2/1/2026 2.00% 4,930,000 3,550,000 Utility G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2017A 7/13/2017 2/1/2033 2.125 - 3% 4,985,000 4,715,000 Utility Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2017A 7/13/2017 2/1/2025 2.125 - 3% 1,485,000 1,145,000 Utility G.O. Revenue Bonds Series 2018A 6/14/2018 2/1/2033 3.00 - 4.00% 6,780,000 6,360,000 Utility G.O. Revenue Bonds Series 2019B 11/26/2019 2/1/3030 3.00 - 5.00% 7,520,000 7,520,000 Total General Obligation Revenue Bonds 29,870,000 24,900,000 Issuance premiums (discounts) N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,853,981 Total - bonded indebtedness 29,870,000 26,753,981 Compensated absences payable N/A N/A N/A N/A 172,491 Total business-type activities 29,870,000 26,926,472 Total long-term debt 107,297,149$ 97,058,564$ 67 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 81 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the governmental activities long-term debt are as follows: Year Ending December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2020 11,165,000$ 1,735,002$ 460,000$ 105,563$ 245,000$ 58,574$ 45,000$ 74,805$ 2021 2,650,000 1,336,238 485,000 84,300 315,000 67,143 45,000 72,983 2022 3,320,000 1,244,066 510,000 61,913 320,000 60,613 45,000 71,104 2023 3,425,000 1,134,675 535,000 38,400 320,000 53,913 50,000 69,048 2024 3,535,000 1,027,116 570,000 13,181 335,000 46,920 50,000 66,823 2025 3,655,000 929,513 - - 340,000 39,585 55,000 64,433 2026 3,745,000 836,063 - - 345,000 32,085 55,000 61,875 2027 3,460,000 734,266 - - 355,000 24,200 60,000 59,143 2028 3,555,000 610,288 - - 195,000 17,558 60,000 56,233 2029 3,300,000 483,781 - - 75,000 13,718 65,000 53,138 2030 3,180,000 379,531 - - 75,000 11,036 65,000 49,855 2031 2,640,000 294,575 - - 80,000 8,130 70,000 46,378 2032 2,710,000 219,075 - - 85,000 4,973 75,000 42,589 2033 1,975,000 152,441 - - 85,000 1,658 75,000 38,633 2034 2,035,000 93,525 - - - - 80,000 34,505 2035 2,100,000 31,500 - - - - 85,000 30,070 2036 - - - - - - 90,000 25,323 2037 - - - - - - 95,000 20,258 2038 - - - - - - 100,000 14,870 2039 - - - - - - 105,000 9,155 2040 - - - - - - 110,000 3,108 Total 56,450,000$ 11,241,655$ 2,560,000$ 303,357$ 3,170,000$ 440,106$ 1,480,000$ 964,329$ G.O. Tax Increment BondsG.O. Improvement Bonds G.O. Revenue BondsG.O. Special Assessment Bonds It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences. 68 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 82 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the business-type long-term debt are as follows: Year Ending December 31 Principal Interest 2020 2,065,000$ 697,129$ 2021 2,135,000 743,925 2022 2,280,000 670,880 2023 2,360,000 592,715 2024 2,150,000 518,300 2025 2,225,000 446,375 2026 2,085,000 367,725 2027 1,605,000 298,688 2028 1,670,000 235,913 2029 1,740,000 169,725 2030 1,805,000 109,563 2031 900,000 69,900 2032 930,000 42,450 2033 950,000 14,250 Total 24,900,000$ 4,977,538$ G.O. Revenue Bonds It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences. 69 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 83 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 CHANGE IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2019 was as follows: Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental activities: Bonds payable: G.O. improvement bonds 28,975,000$ 29,805,000$ 2,330,000$ 56,450,000$ 11,165,000$ G.O. tax increment bonds 2,995,000 - 435,000 2,560,000 460,000 G.O. special assessment bonds 3,315,000 2,200,000 2,345,000 3,170,000 245,000 G.O. revenue bonds 1,520,000 - 40,000 1,480,000 45,000 Add: Premiums on bonds 541,808 1,965,389 113,380 2,393,817 - Total bonds payable 37,250,293 33,970,389 5,237,405 65,983,277 11,915,000 Capital lease payable 180,382 - 59,378 121,005 59,378 Compensated absences 4,095,604 2,883,222 2,951,016 4,027,810 2,661,698 Total governmental activity long-term debt 41,526,279$ 36,853,611$ 8,247,799$ 70,132,092$ 14,636,076$ Business-type activities: Bonds payable: G.O. revenue bonds 19,475,000$ 7,520,000$ 2,095,000$ 24,900,000$ 2,065,000$ Add: Premiums on bonds 677,443 1,248,508 71,970 1,853,981 - Total bonds payable 20,152,443 8,768,508 2,166,970 26,753,981 2,065,000 Compensated absences 175,593 191,914 195,016 172,491 112,119 Total business-type activity long-term debt 20,328,036$ 8,960,422$ 2,361,986$ 26,926,472$ 2,177,119$ For governmental activities, compensated absences are paid out of the Employee benefits internal service fund. $22,220,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019A On April 10, 2019, the City issued General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $22,220,000 to finance construction of a new Westwood Hills Nature Center, the City’s portion of various improvements for the Southwest Light Rail Transit line, improvements to the City’s fiber system, the costs of sidewalks and trails including reconstruction costs of sidewalks and trails along Cedar Lake Road related to the City’s Connect the Park Initiative, and the cost of reconstruction to Cedar Lake Road. The G.O. Bonds will have a term of 10 years, with an interest rate between 2.00% - 4.00%, and will be repaid with property tax levies. $15,105,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019B On November 26, 2019, the City issued General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $15,105,000. $8,610,000 was issued to refund the 2010D Taxable General Obligation Build America Bonds on February 1, 2020. (current refunding). The G.O. Refunding Bonds will have a term of 10 years, with an interest rate between 3.00% - 5.00% and will be repaid with property tax levies. The remaining $6,495,000 was issued to finance the construction of various utility system improvements. The G.O. Bonds will have a term of 10 years, with an interest rate between 3.00% - 5.00%, and will be repaid with utility revenues. 70 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 84 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 The refunding portion of the transaction will reduce debt service payments related to the refunded bonds by $866,256, with a net present value (economic gain) of $781,746. $2,200,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2019C On November 26, 2019, the City issued Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Refunding Bonds in the amount of $2,200,000 to refund the 2010A Taxable General Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds on December 10, 2019 (current refunding). The G.O. Refunding Bonds will have a term of 10 years, with an interest rate between 2.00% - 2.20%, and will be repaid with property tax levies. The refunding portion of the transaction will reduce debt service payments related to the refunded bonds by $503,253, with a net present value (economic gain) of $376,329. CAPITAL LEASE PAYABLE A. VEHICLES In 2016, the City entered into a lease agreement for ten vehicles. The agreement calls for total monthly payments of $4,145 maturing on May 1, 2021, with an interest rate of 4.53 percent. Depreciation in the amount of $44,481 has been recorded as depreciation expense during 2019. In 2018, the City entered into a lease agreement for three vehicles. The agreement calls for total monthly payments of $1,406 maturing on May 1, 2023, with an interest rate of 5.00 percent. Depreciation in the amount of $11,154 has been recorded as depreciation expense during 2019. The net book value of assets under the capital lease at December 31, 2019 is as follows: Equipment 313,475$ Accumulated depreciation (210,886) Net book value 102,589$ The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments under the capital lease: Year Ending December 31, Payment 2020 66,612$ 2021 37,584 2022 16,877 2023 7,026 Total minimum lease payments 128,099 Less: amount representing interest (7,095) Present value of minimum lease payments 121,004$ 71 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 85 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 REVENUE PLEDGED Future revenue pledged for the payment of long-term debt is as follows: Percent of Debt service Remaining Principal Pledged Use of total as a % of Pledged Principal and Interest Revenue Bond Issue Proceeds Type debt service net revenues Through and Interest paid received G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2012A Housing Improvement Area Fee 100% 58% 2033 1,224,367 86,238 147,805 G.O. Improvement Bonds Series 2010A / Refunding 2019C Housing Improvement Area Fee 100% 93% 2028 2,385,736 284,583 306,206 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2008B Street Improvements TIF 100% 100% 2024 2,863,356 559,613 559,613 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds Series 2010C Louisiana Court Project Operating revenues of Louisiana Court 100% 98% 2040 2,444,323 116,455 119,342 Utility Crossover Refunding Bonds Series 2013A Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2023 1,666,658 795,512 795,512 Utility Revenue Bonds Series 201 Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2026 3,804,300 545,700 545,700 Utility Revenue Bonds Series 201 Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2033 5,686,138 406,275 406,275 Utility Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2017A Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2025 1,250,975 211,975 211,975 Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2018A Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% 100% 2033 7,905,300 677,846 677,846 Utility Revenue Bonds Series 2019B Utility Infrastructure Projects Utility charges 100% n/a 2030 9,564,167 - - Revenue Pledged Current Year 72 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 86 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 7 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS A. PLAN DESCRIPTION The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1. General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) All full-time (with the exception of employees covered by PEPFF) and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF). GERF members belong to the Coordinated Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security. 2. Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) The PEPFF, originally established for police officers and firefighters not covered by a local relief association, now covers all police officers and firefighters hired since 1980. Effective July 1, 1999, the PEPFF also covers police officers and firefighters belonging to a local relief association that elected to merge with and transfer assets and administration to PERA. B. BENEFITS PROVIDED PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Vested terminated employees who are entitled to benefits, but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. 1. GERF Benefits Benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA's Coordinated Plan members. Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Method 1 or Method 2 formulas. Only Method 2 is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under Method 1, the accrual rate for a Coordinated Plan members is 1.2% for each of the first ten years and 1.7% for each additional year. Under Method 2, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.7% for all years of service. The accrual for Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund (MERF) members is 2% for each of the first 10 years of service and 2.5% for each additional year. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989, normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits, capped at 66. Annuities, disability benefits, and survivor benefits are increased effective every January 1. Beginning January 1, 2019, the postretirement increase will be equal to 50 percent of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) announced by the SSA, with a minimum increase of at least 1 percent and a maximum of 1.5 percent. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. For recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for 73 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 87 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 at least one month but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase. For members retiring on January 1, 2024 or later, the increase will be delayed until normal retirement age (age 65 if hired prior to July 1, 1989, or age 66 for individuals hired on or after July 1, 1989). Members retiring under Rule of 90 are exempt from the delay to normal retirement. PEPFF Benefits Benefits for the PEPFF members first hired after June 30, 2010, but before July 1, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after five years up to 100% after ten years of credited service. Benefits for PEPFF members first hired after June 30, 2014, vest on a prorated basis from 50% after ten years up to 100% after twenty years of credited service. The annuity accrual rate is 3% of average salary for each year of service. For PEPFF members who were first hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal at least 90. Annuities, disability benefits, and survivor benefits are increased effective every January 1. Beginning January 1, 2019, the postretirement increase will be fixed at 1 percent. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. For recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 25 months but less than 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase. C. CONTRIBUTIONS Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. 1. GERF Contributions Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 6.50% of their annual covered salary in fiscal year 2019. The City was required to contribute 7.50% for Coordinated Plan members. The City’s contributions to the GERF for the year ended December 31, 2019, were $1,270,160. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 2. PEPFF Contributions Police and Fire member’s contribution rates increased from 10.8 percent of pay to 11.3 percent and employer rates increased from 16.2 percent to 16.95 percent on January 1, 2019. The City’s contributions to the PEPFF for the year ended December 31, 2019, were $1,433,661. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 74 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 88 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 D. PENSIONS COST 1. GERF Pension Costs At December 31, 2019, the City reported a liability of $13,036,854 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s net pension liability. The City’s net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the fund in 2019. The State of Minnesota is considered a non-employer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $405,149. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2019, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2019 the City’s proportion was .2358% which was an increase of .0051% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2018. City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability $13,036,854 State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City 405,149 Total $13,442,003 For the year ended December 31, 2019, the City recognized pension expense of $1,783,511 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s pension expense. In addition, the City recognized an additional $30,342 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund. At December 31, 2019, the City reported its proportionate share of the GERF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience 363,085$ -$ Changes in actuarial assumptions 7,103 1,030,142 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings - 1,311,978 Changes in proportion 444,896 86,928 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 627,520 - Total 1,442,604$ 2,429,048$ 75 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 89 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 $627,520 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2020. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Pension Year Ended Expense December 31, Amount 2020 (573,932) 2021 (879,111) 2022 (181,928) 2023 21,007 2024 - Thereafter - 2. PEPFF Pension Costs At December 31, 2019, the City reported a liability of $8,307,082 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2019, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2019, the City’s proportion was .7803%, which was an increase of .0583% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2018. The City also recognized $105,340 for the year ended December 31, 2019, as revenue and an offsetting reduction of net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the PEPFF. Legislation passed in 2013 required the State of Minnesota to begin contributing $9 million to the PEPFF each year, until the plan is 90 percent funded or until the State Patrol Plan (administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System) is 90 percent funded, whichever occurs later. In addition, the state will pay $4.5 million on October 1, 2018 and October 1, 2019 in direct state aid. Thereafter, by October 1 of each year, the state will pay $9 million until full funding is reached or July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the City recognized pension expense of $1,476,202 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s pension expense. 76 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 90 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 At December 31, 2019, the City reported its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience 355,430$ 1,356,307$ Changes in actuarial assumptions 7,283,310 9,493,929 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings - 1,696,051 Changes in proportion 2,236,629 1,431,454 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date 720,565 - Total 10,595,934$ 13,977,741$ $720,565 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2020. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Pension Year Ended Expense December 31, Amount 2020 (370,275) 2021 (1,055,685) 2022 (3,306,612) 2023 514,132 2024 116,068 Thereafter - E. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS The total pension liability in the June 30, 2019, actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions: Inflation 2.50% per year Active Member Payroll Growth 3.25% per year Investment Rate of Return 7.50% Salary increases were based on a service-related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors, and disabilitants for all plans were based on RP 2014 tables for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustments to fit PERA’s experience. Cost of living benefit increases after retirement for retirees are assumed to be 1.25 percent per year for the General Employees Plan, 1.0 percent per year for the Police and Fire Plan. 77 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 91 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2019 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The most recent four-year experience study in the General Employees Plan was completed in 2019. The most recent four-year experience study for Police and Fire Plan was completed in 2016. The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 2019: General Employees Fund Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. Changes in Plan Provisions: The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31.0 million to $21.0 million per year. The State’s special funding contribution was changed prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031. Police and Fire Fund Changes in Actuarial Assumptions The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018 Changes in the Plan Provisions There have been no changes since the prior valuation The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate, ranges of expected, future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Target Long-Term Expected Asset Class Allocation Real Rate of Return Domestic Equity 35.5% 5.10% International Equity 17.5% 5.90% Fixed Income 20% 0.75% Private Markets 25% 5.90% Cash Equivalents 2% 0.00% Total 100% F. DISCOUNT RATE The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2019 was 7.50%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary net position of the General Employees Fund and the Police and Fire Fund was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. 78 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 92 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 G. PENSION LIABILITY SENSITIVITY The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease in 1% Increase in Discount Rate (6.5%) Discount Rate (7.5%) Discount Rate (8.5%) City's proportionate share of the GERF net pension liability 21,431,886$ 13,036,854$ 6,105,086$ City's proportionate share of the PEPFF net pension liability 18,157,737$ 8,307,082$ 161$ The net pension liability is generally liquidated by the Employee Benefits Internal Service Fund. H. PENSION PLAN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.mnpera.org. I. PENSION EXPENSE Pension expense recognized by the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 is as follows: GERF 1,783,511$ PEPFF 1,476,202 Total 3,259,713$ Note 8 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN Four council members of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, are covered by the Public Employees Defined Contribution Plan (PEDCP), a multiple-employer deferred compensation plan administered by PERA. The PEDCP is a tax qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and all contributions by or on behalf of employees are tax deferred until time of withdrawal. Plan benefits depend solely on amounts contributed to the plan plus investment earnings, less administrative expenses. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 353D.03, specifies plan provisions, including the employee and employer contribution rates for those qualified personnel who elect to participate. An eligible elected official who decides to participate contributes 5% of salary which is matched by the elected official’s employer. For ambulance service personnel, employer contributions are determined by the employer, and for salaried employees must be a fixed percentage of salary. Employer contributions for volunteer personnel may be a unit value for each call or period of alert duty. Employees who are paid for their services may elect to make member contributions in an amount not to exceed the employer share. Employer and employee contributions are combined and used to purchase shares in one or more of the seven accounts of the Minnesota 79 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 93 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Supplemental Investment Fund. For administering the plan, PERA receives 2% of employer contributions and twenty-five hundredths of 1% (.0025) of the assets in each member’s account annually. Total contributions made by the City during fiscal year 2019 were: Required Employer Employee (Pension Expense) Employee Employer Rate 2,989$ 2,989$ 5% 5% 5% Contribution Amount Percentage of Covered Payroll Note 9 POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS (OPEB) A. PLAN DESCRIPTION In addition to providing the pension benefits described in Notes 7 and 8, the City provides post-employment health care benefits, as defined in paragraph B, through its group health insurance plan (the plan). The plan is a single-employer defined benefit OPEB plan administered by the City. The authority to provide these benefits is established in Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.61 Subd. 2a and 299A.465. The benefits, benefit levels, employee contributions and employer contributions are governed by the City and can be amended by the City through its personnel manual and collective bargaining agreements with employee groups. No assets are accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 75. B. BENEFITS PROVIDED The City is required by State Statute to allow retirees to continue participation in the City’s group health insurance plan if the individual terminates service with the City through service retirement or disability retirement. Police officers, firefighters, sergeants, and dispatchers age 50 and over with 3 years of service, or age 65 with 1 year of service, may continue medical and dental coverage at their own expense. Non-union and 49ers union employees age 55 with 3 years of service, age 65 with 1 year of service, any age with 30 years of service, or those whose age plus service is at least 90 may continue medical and dental coverage at their own expense. Employees may obtain dependent coverage at retirement only if the employee was receiving dependent coverage immediately prior to retirement. The surviving spouse of an active employee may continue coverage in the group health insurance plan after the employee’s death. All health care coverage is provided through the City’s group health insurance plans. The retiree is required to pay 100% of their premium cost for the City-sponsored group health insurance plan in which they participate. The premium is a blended rate determined on the entire active and retiree population. Since the projected claims costs for retirees exceed the blended premium paid by retirees, the retirees are receiving an implicit rate subsidy (benefit). The coverage levels are the same as those afforded to active employees. Upon a retiree reaching age 65, Medicare becomes the primary insurer. 80 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 94 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 C. PARTICIPANTS As of the December 31, 2019 actuarial valuation, participants of the plan consisted of: Active employees electing coverage 276 Active employees waiving coverage 1 Retirees electing coverage 26 Total 303 D. TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY AND CHANGES IN TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY The City’s total OPEB liability of $3,823,756 was measured as of December 31, 2018, and was determined by an actuarial valuation as of December 31, 2019. Changes in the total OPEB liability during 2019 were: Changes for the year: Service cost 312,898$ Interest cost 122,728 Changes of benefit terms - Differences between expected and actual experience 269,604 Changes in assumptions (170,614) Benefit payments (211,503) Net changes 323,113 Balance - beginning of year 3,500,643 Balance - end of year 3,823,756$ There were no plan changes since the measurement date of December 31, 2019. E. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND OTHER INPUTS The total OPEB liability in the December 31, 2019 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions and other inputs, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified: Inflation 2.50% Salary increases Based on most recently disclosed assumptions for the pension plan in which the employee participates Discount rate 3.71% 20-year muncipal bond yield 3.71% Healthcare cost trend rates 6.40% in 2019 gradually decreasing over several decades to an ultimate rate of 4.00% in 2076 and later years Retirees' share of benefit-related costs 100% Since the plan is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, both the discount rate and the investment rate of return were based on published rate information for 20-year, tax exempt, municipal bonds as of the measurement date. (Fidelity 20-year Municipal G.O. AA Index) 81 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 95 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Mortality rates for general employees and for Police and Fire were based on the RP-2014 mortality tables with projected mortality improvements based on scale MP-2017, and other adjustments. The actuarial assumptions used in the December 31, 2018 valuation are similar to those used to value pension liabilities for Minnesota public employees. The state pension plans base their assumptions on periodic experience studies. Changes in assumptions and other inputs since the prior measurement date reflect an increase in the discount rate from 3.31% to 3.71%. F. SENSITIVITY OF THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY TO CHANGES IN THE DISCOUNT RATE The following table presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1% lower (2.71%) or 1% higher (4.71%) than the current discount rate: 1% Decrease Discount Rate 1% Increase (2.71%) (3.71%) (4.71%) Total OPEB liability 4,168,286$ 3,823,756$ 3,516,366$ G. SENSITIVITY OF THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY TO CHANGES IN THE HEALTHCARE COST TREND RATES The following table presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% lower (5.40% decreasing to 3.00%) or 1% higher (7.40% decreasing to 5.00%) than the current healthcare cost trend rates: Current Healthcare 1% Decrease Cost Trend Rates 1% Increase Total OPEB liability 3,405,719$ 3,823,756$ 4,316,474$ 82 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 96 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 H. OPEB EXPENSE AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS AND INFLOWS OF RESOURCES RELATED TO OPEB For the year ended December 31, 2019, the City recognized $461,928 of OPEB expense. At December 31, 2019, the City reported deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Difference between expected 237,997$ -$ and actual liability Contributions subsequent to 90,827 150,612 the measurement date Changes in assumption 146,323 - Total 475,147$ 150,612$ $146,332 of the deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the OPEB liability in the year ending December 31, 2020. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows: Year Ended OPEB December 31, Expense 2020 172,634$ 2021 26,302 2022 26,302 2023 26,302 2024 26,302 Thereafter 46,702 324,544$ 83 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 97 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 10 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES AND TRANSFERS The City has established interfund loans to finance infrastructure improvements, project reimbursements, housing rehabilitation loans and to provide initial financing for TIF districts. A summary at December 31, 2019 is as follows: Interfund Interfund Loan Loan Receivable Payable Major Funds: Development EDA 3,512,883$ -$ Redevelopment District - 3,512,883 Total 3,512,883$ 3,512,883$ The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund shown as due from other funds in the advancing fund, and a due to other fund in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. A summary at December 31, 2019 is as follows: Due From Due To Other Funds Other Funds Major Funds: Storm Water 1,799,253$ -$ Other: Capital Projects - 1,799,253 Total 1,799,253$ 1,799,253$ 84 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 98 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Interfund Transfers Interfund transfers at December 31, 2019 are as follows: Housing Streets Internal General Rehabilitation Debt Service Capital Project Service Funds Totals Transfers out: General -$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$ 300,000$ Housing Rehabilitation 8,684 - 331,703 - - 340,387 Redevelopment District - 160,000 929,162 472,363 - 1,561,525 Development EDA 40,000 - - - - 40,000 Nonmajor Special Revenue 34,506 - - - - 34,506 Nonmajor Capital Projects 22,829 - - 205,201 - 228,030 Water 586,308 - - 755 33,726 620,789 Sewer 814,609 - - 12,431 49,204 876,244 Solid Waste 207,331 - - - 33,726 241,057 Storm Water 298,439 - - - 33,726 332,165 Total transfers in 2,012,706$ 160,000$ 1,260,865$ 690,750$ 450,382$ 4,574,703$ Fund Transfers in Generally, transfers are used to (1) move revenues from the fund that collects them to the fund that the budget requires to expend them, (2) move receipts restricted to debt service from the funds collecting the receipts to a debt service fund in accordance with bond documents, (3) move funds in accordance with the City’s adopted capital improvement plan to support project costs, and (4) use unrestricted revenues collected in the General Fund to finance various programs accounted for in other funds in accordance with City policy. 85 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 99 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 11 FUND BALANCE A. CLASSIFICATIONS At December 31, 2019, a summary of the governmental fund balance classifications are as follows: Nonspendable Restricted Committed Assigned General Fund Prepaid items 112,570$ -$ -$ -$ Inventories 227,677 - - - E-911 purposes - 107,683 - - Fire donation - 19,000 - - Inspections - - - 550,000 DWI enforcement - - - 195,651 Race data survey - - - 50,000 Tax court petitions - - - 200,000 Communnity survey - - - 25,000 COVID 19 - - - 581,872 Housing Rehabilitation - - 39,775 5,711,287 Debt service - 13,443,508 - - Development EDA Prepaid items 299 - - - Economic development - - 241,193 - Redevelopment efforts - - - 21,708,164 Redevelopment districts - 6,010,191 - - Streets Capital Projects - - - - Westwood Nature Center construction 5,089,375 - 170,304 Other governmental funds Prepaid items 6,500 - - - Capital improvements - 1,463,152 - 2,872,261 Affordable housing - 4,515 - - Community development - 461,840 - - Cable TV equipment purchases - 262,666 632,529 691,398 Police and fire purposes - 1,409,975 - - Light pole replacement - 370,000 Special service districts - - - 74,606 Total 347,046$ 28,271,905$ 913,497$ 33,200,543$ Unless separately displayed, contraints are not more specific than the purpose of the fund. Fund/Description 86 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 100 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 B. MINIMUM FUND BALANCE POLICY The City Council has formally adopted a fund balance policy for the General Fund. The policy establishes a year-end target of unassigned fund balance amount for cash flow timing needs in the range of 40-50% of the subsequent years budget expenditures. At December 31, 2019, the unassigned fund balance for the General Fund was 45% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Note 12 DEFICIT FUND BALANCE/NET POSITION At December 31, 2019, individual funds with deficit fund balance/net position are as follows: Amount Future Financing Source Redevelopment District: Elmwood Village (1,986,765)$ Future tax increment Hard Coat TIF District (31,283) Future tax increment Other Governmental Funds: Park Improvement (708,721) Future property taxes Sidewalks and Trails (433,880) Future bonding Streets Capital Projects (1,403,203) Future bonding/MSA reimbursement Pavement Management (1,277,328) Future bonding/franchise taxes Internal Service Funds: Employee Benefits (32,873,567) Future pension contributions and investment earnings Total (38,714,747)$ Note 13 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A. RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. The City continues to carry commercial insurance for risks of loss, including workers compensation, property and general liability and employee health and accident insurance. There were no significant reductions in insurance from the previous year or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three fiscal years. PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE Property and casualty insurance coverage is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), a public entity risk pool currently operating as a common risk management and insurance program for Minnesota cities: general liability, excess liability property, automobile, marine, crime, employee dishonesty, boiler and open meeting law. The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for its insurance coverage. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through member premiums and reinsures through commercial companies for claims in excess of various amounts. The City 87 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 101 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 retains risk for the deductible portions of the insurance policies. The deductible amounts are $50,000 for each occurrence and a $150,000 annual aggregate. Current State Statute (Minnesota Statute subd. 466.04) provides limits of liability for the City. These limits are that the combination of defense expense and indemnification expense shall not exceed $500,000 in the case of one claimant or $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. B. LITIGATION The City attorney has indicated that existing and pending lawsuits, claims and other actions in which the City is a defendant are either covered by insurance; of an immaterial amount; or, in the judgment of the City attorney, remotely recoverable by plaintiffs. C. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2019. D. TAX ABATEMENTS – PAY-AS-YOU-GO TAX INCREMENT The City EDA provides tax abatements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.174 to 469.1794 (Tax Increment Financing) through a pay-as-you-go note program. Tax increment financing (TIF) can be used to encourage private development, redevelopment, renovation and renewal, growth in low-to-moderate-income housing, and economic development within the City. TIF captures the increase in tax capacity and property taxes from development or redevelopment to provide funding for the related project. The City has numerousl tax increment pay-as-you-go agreements. The agreements are not a general obligation of the City and are payable solely from available tax increment. Accordingly, these agreements are not reflected in the financial statements of the City. The pay-as-you-go note provides for payment to the developer a percentage of all tax increment received in the prior six months. The payment reimburses the developer for public improvements. Principal and interest shall be paid on February 1 and August 1. Payments are payable solely from available tax increment derived from the developed/redeveloped property and paid to the City. The City shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final payment. 88 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 102 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Details of the pay-as-you-go notes are as follows: Issue Principal Interest First Final % TIF 2019 12/31/2019 District Name / Note Description Date Amount Rate Note Pymt Note Pymt Available Payments Balance Zarthan/16th Ave TIF District Rottlund - Town Homes/Condos 11/06/2000 $1,395,547 8.00% 08/01/2003 02/01/2023 89.75% 252,421 695,170 CSM - Town Place Suites 10/25/2000 1,101,362 8.00% 08/01/2003 02/01/2022 89.75% 91,930 1,218,476 CSM - Spring Hill Suites 10/25/2000 1,448,088 8.00% 08/01/2003 02/01/2022 89.75% 118,621 1,750,836 462,972 Mill City TIF District MSP SLP Apartments 11/20/2000 3,431,137 8.75% 08/1/2002 02/01/2023 94.75% 553,865 3,294,816 Park Commons TIF District Excelsior & Grand Phase I 07/01/2003 3,500,000 8.50% 08/05/2005 08/01/2022 97.00% 1,035,706 2,339,940 Excelsior & Grand Phase NE 06/05/2006 4,668,633 8.50% 08/01/2006 02/01/2028 97.00% 480,190 4,570,336 Excelsior & Grand Phase NW 06/05/2006 4,079,105 8.50% 08/01/2007 02/01/2028 97.00% 465,105 4,405,731 Excelsior & Grand Phase E 06/05/2006 3,300,715 8.50% 08/01/2006 02/01/2028 97.00% 299,242 4,072,502 2,280,243 Edgewood TIF District Real Estate Recycling / Edgewood Investors 02/01/2004 600,000 1.70% 08/01/2006 08/01/2019 95.00% 48,883 - Wolfe Lake TIF District Belt Line Industrial Park 01/20/2006 996,000 7.50% 08/01/2006 02/01/2020 95.00% 118,185 46,698 Elmwood Village TIF District Webster LLC / Adagio Senior Apts 07/29/2013 820,000 4.00% 08/01/2014 08/01/2019 95.00% 165,029 - Medley Row Town Homes 07/29/2013 200,000 4.00% 08/01/2014 02/01/2020 95.00% 66,848 - Hoigaard Village 2010A TIF Revenue Bonds 10/21/2010 3,495,000 1.5-5% 02/01/2011 02/01/2023 95.00% 367,500 1,330,000 599,377 Highway 7 Corporate Center TIF District Highway 7 Business Center Note A 07/24/2008 2,100,000 1.00% 08/01/2008 08/01/2027 95.00% 114,768 854,736 Highway 7 Business Center Note B 07/24/2008 360,000 1.00% 08/01/2008 08/01/2027 95.00% 19,674 146,526 Highway 7 Business Center Note C 07/24/2008 72,000 1.00% 08/01/2028 95.00% - 80,363 Highway 7 Business Center Note D 07/24/2008 23,000 1.00% 08/01/2028 95.00% - 25,672 134,442 West End TIF District Duke Realty Limited Partnership 11/01/2010 21,100,000 6.75% 02/01/2012 08/01/2031 95.00% 1,919,765 20,909,528 Ellipse on Excelsior TIF District Bader Development / Ellipse II 08/01/2015 686,195 5.60% 08/01/2015 02/01/2021 95.00% 157,300 156,169 Eliot Park TIF District Weidner / Siena Apartment Homes 05/18/2016 1,100,000 5.50% 08/01/2016 08/01/2020 95.00% 309,043 365,725 The Shoreham TIF District Bader Development / Shoreham Apts LLC 05/14/2019 1,200,000 3.75% 09/06/2019 08/01/2021 95.00% 620,441 589,434 4900 Excelsior TIF District Weidner / 4900 Excelsior Apts LLC 03/05/2019 2,800,000 4.50% 08/01/2019 02/01/2027 95.00% 211,547 2,640,603 89 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 103 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 E. LOUISIANA COURT PROJECT The City of St. Louis Park has entered into an agreement with Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to issue $4,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds – Series 2000A for the purpose of acquiring and renovating certain rental housing facilities within the City of St. Louis Park intended primarily for low and moderate income persons and their families. During 2010, the 2000A bonds were refunded by the $1,770,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010C. The City of St. Louis Park will receive monthly principal and interest payments from Project for Pride in Living Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to cover all debt service obligations of the City of St. Louis Park on a semi-annual basis. In the event that the City of St. Louis Park does not receive payment from Project for Pride in Living, the City of St. Louis Park is still under obligation to make all debt service payments. At such time, the City of St. Louis Park would pursue collection of above referenced principal and interest payments per the agreement dated May 1, 2000. As of December 31, 2019, the outstanding principal on the bonds is $1,480,000. F. CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS The City has active construction projects as of December 31, 2019. The projects include street construction in areas with newly developed housing, widening and construction of existing streets and bridges, and the construction of additional storm sewer and utility improvements. At year end the City’s commitments with contractors are as follows: Remaining Project Commitment SCADA system replacement 999,311$ 2019 pavement management 998,760 HVAC, joint sealant, and louvers 499,747 Roofing 476,570 Windows and doors 331,511 Carpentry 271,793 2019 Cedar Lake Road MSA project 259,636 Electrical 258,922 Plumbing systems 223,647 Historic Walker Lake Reconstruction - phase 1 211,967 Drywall 174,890 Cementitious cladding (building siding)171,090 Interior finish carpentry and cabinets 169,226 Landscaping 146,763 Earthwork 136,038 Photovoltaic collectors 129,019 Painting 87,200 Exhibit fabrication 85,425 Doors, frames, and hardware 83,649 Concrete and decorative concrete 69,594 Multi-media AV system 60,441 Pavement markings, traffic control, asphalt 55,281 Air/vapor barrier 54,595 Sec sys, access-controlled doors, cameras for IP Video 52,642 6,007,717$ 90 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 104 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 14 CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS From time to time, the City has issued industrial, hospital or housing revenue bonds to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial, commercial or housing facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private- sector entity served by the bond issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2019, there were 16 revenue bonds issued. The aggregate principal amount payable as of December 31, 2019 is $178,414,810. Note 15 RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) recently approved the following statements which were not implemented for these financial statements: Statement No. 83 Certain Asset Retirement Obligations. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2019. Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. Statement No. 87 Leases. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. Statement No. 88 Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, including Direct Borrowings and Direct Placements. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2019. Statement No. 89 Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred before the End of a Construction Period. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2020. Statement No. 90 Majority Equity Interests – an amendment of GASB Statements No. 14 and No. 61. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. Statement No. 91 Conduit Debt Obligations. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2021. Statement No. 92 Omnibus 2020. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2021. Statement No. 93 Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates. The provisions of this Statement contain multiple effective dates, the first being for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2020. Statement No. 94 Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Availability Payment Arrangements. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2022. The effect these standards may have on future financial statements is not determinable at this time, but it is expected that Statement No. 87 may have a material impact. 91 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 105 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2019 Note 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND UNCERTAINTIES The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause rapidly changing disruptions world-wide. Management has evaluated these conditions and believes that it is not possible to reasonably estimate the financial impact, if any, of COVID-19 on the City’s financial statements at December 31, 2019. 92 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 106 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 93 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 107 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 1 of 5 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budgeted Amounts Original Final Revenues Property taxes 26,880,004$ 26,880,004$ 27,028,744$ 148,740$ Abatement of property taxes - - (94,254) (94,254) Total property taxes 26,880,004 26,880,004 26,934,490 54,486 Licenses and permits Business regulatory licenses 705,466 705,466 772,626 67,160 Non-business licenses and permits 3,397,958 3,397,958 4,492,033 1,094,075 Total licenses and permits 4,103,424 4,103,424 5,264,659 1,161,235 Intergovernmental Federal 83,500 83,500 23,366 (60,134) State shared taxes Highway user tax 725,000 725,000 635,524 (89,476) Insurance premium tax 725,225 725,225 768,987 43,762 State of Minnesota Other 73,970 73,970 175,827 101,857 PERA 45,205 45,205 45,205 - Police training reimbursement 45,000 45,000 52,691 7,691 School district 58,700 58,700 56,602 (2,098) Other local governments 2,800 2,800 2,512 (288) Total intergovernmental 1,759,400 1,759,400 1,760,714 1,314 Charges for services General government 794,419 794,419 800,631 6,212 Public safety 197,600 197,600 150,156 (47,444) Public works - signals/lighting 11,500 11,500 9,000 (2,500) Culture and rec 1,183,800 1,183,800 1,201,611 17,811 Rent of City property 1,332,062 1,332,062 1,455,754 123,692 Total charges for services 3,519,381 3,519,381 3,617,152 97,771 Fines and forfeits Municipal court 240,000 240,000 185,098 (54,902) Liquor violations 12,000 12,000 5,500 (6,500) Property forfeits 25,000 25,000 75,709 50,709 Miscellaneous violations 2,700 2,700 8,032 5,332 Total fines and forfeits 279,700 279,700 274,339 (5,361) Interest income 180,000 180,000 523,124 343,124 Miscellaneous Other 67,750 67,750 120,201 52,451 Total miscellaneous 67,750 67,750 120,201 52,451 Total revenues 36,789,659 36,789,659 38,494,679 1,799,274 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information.94 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 108 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 2 of 5 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budgeted Amounts Expenditures Original Final General government Administration Current Personal services 1,139,675$ 1,139,675$ 1,050,140$ 89,535$ Supplies 15,125 15,125 6,524 8,601 Other services and charges 757,170 757,170 742,787 14,383 Total administration 1,911,970 1,911,970 1,799,451 112,519 Finance Current Personal services 643,716 643,716 647,371 (3,655) Materials and supplies 3,000 3,000 2,380 620 Other services and charges 387,483 387,483 428,541 (41,058) Total finance 1,034,199 1,034,199 1,078,292 (44,093) Assessing Current Personal services 754,821 754,821 719,339 35,482 Materials and supplies 1,600 1,600 1,901 (301) Other services and charges 16,325 16,325 30,496 (14,171) Total assessing 772,746 772,746 751,736 21,010 Human resources Current Personal services 633,520 633,520 639,798 (6,278) Supplies 2,000 2,000 2,217 (217) Other services and charges 170,100 170,100 114,751 55,349 Total human resources 805,620 805,620 756,766 48,854 Community development Current Personal services 1,487,721 1,487,721 1,456,676 31,045 Materials and supplies 1,300 1,300 1,784 (484) Other services and charges 13,500 13,500 57,211 (43,711) Total community development 1,502,521 1,502,521 1,515,671 (13,150) Facilities maintenance Current Personal services 486,509 486,509 472,535 13,974 Materials and supplies 78,000 78,000 73,225 4,775 Other services and charges 605,702 605,702 663,719 (58,017) Total facilities maintenance 1,170,211 1,170,211 1,209,479 (39,268) Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information.95 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 109 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 3 of 5 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budgeted Amounts Expenditures (continued) Original Final General government (continued) Communications and marketing Current Personal services 413,424$ 413,424$ 454,142$ (40,718)$ Materials and supplies 22,500 22,500 15,061 7,439 Other services and charges 369,750 369,750 317,245 52,505 Total communications, etc. 805,674 805,674 786,448 19,226 Information resources Current Personal services 915,037 915,037 878,108 36,929 Materials and supplies 24,500 24,500 11,785 12,715 Other services and charges 735,400 735,400 584,712 150,688 Total information services 1,674,937 1,674,937 1,474,605 200,332 Total general government 9,677,878 9,677,878 9,372,448 305,430 Public safety Police Current Personal services 9,420,699 9,420,699 9,386,274 34,425 Materials and supplies 168,600 168,600 165,741 2,859 Other services and charges 746,198 746,198 806,208 (60,010) Capital outlay - - 93,819 (93,819) Total police 10,335,497 10,335,497 10,452,042 (116,545) Fire protection Current Personal services 4,276,884 4,276,884 4,153,461 123,423 Materials and supplies 129,500 129,500 102,284 27,216 Other services and charges 406,694 406,694 498,778 (92,084) Total fire protection 4,813,078 4,813,078 4,754,523 58,555 Building Current Personal services 2,432,881 2,432,881 2,253,127 179,754 Materials and supplies 12,000 12,000 7,978 4,022 Other services and charges 110,454 110,454 169,366 (58,912) Total building 2,555,335 2,555,335 2,430,471 124,864 Total public safety 17,703,910 17,703,910 17,637,036 66,874 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information.96 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 110 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 4 of 5 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budgeted Amounts Expenditures (continued) Original Final Operations Public works administration Current Personal services 267,303$ 267,303$ 201,009$ 66,294$ Materials and supplies 4,500 4,500 1,750 2,750 Other services and charges 18,950 18,950 11,682 7,268 Total public works administration 290,753 290,753 214,441 76,312 Public works operations Current Personal services 1,588,652 1,588,652 1,574,318 14,334 Materials and supplies 428,500 428,500 457,160 (28,660) Other services and charges 1,094,329 1,094,329 1,068,015 26,314 Total public works operations 3,111,481 3,111,481 3,099,493 11,988 Vehicle maintenance Current Personal services 624,812 624,812 621,658 3,154 Materials and supplies 426,912 426,912 486,767 (59,855) Other services and charges 190,512 190,512 160,274 30,238 Total vehicle maintenance 1,242,236 1,242,236 1,268,699 (26,463) Engineering Current Personal services 410,224 410,224 446,525 (36,301) Materials and supplies 8,000 8,000 4,229 3,771 Other services and charges 152,153 152,153 158,811 (6,658) Total engineering 570,377 570,377 609,565 (39,188) Total operations 5,214,847 5,214,847 5,192,198 22,649 Parks and recreation Organized recreation Current Personal services 1,043,569 1,043,569 997,266 46,303 Materials and supplies 55,400 55,400 30,870 24,530 Other services and charges 480,600 480,600 470,327 10,273 Total organized recreation 1,579,569 1,579,569 1,498,463 81,106 Recreation Center Current Personal services 1,205,106 1,205,106 1,272,698 (67,592) Materials and supplies 195,250 195,250 164,044 31,206 Other services and charges 549,301 549,301 604,645 (55,344) Total recreation center 1,949,657 1,949,657 2,041,387 (91,730) Park maintenance Current Personal services 1,231,221 1,231,221 1,212,716 18,505 Materials and supplies 106,555 106,555 115,976 (9,421) Other services and charges 495,521 495,521 491,759 3,762 Total park maintenance 1,833,297 1,833,297 1,820,451 12,846 Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information.97 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 111 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 5 of 5 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Budgeted Amounts Expenditures (continued) Original Final Parks and recreation (continued) Westwood hills nature center Current Personal services 574,736 574,736 559,007 15,729 Materials and supplies 28,950 28,950 18,575 10,375 Other services and charges 40,064 40,064 34,688 5,376 Total westwood hills nature center 643,750 643,750 612,270 31,480 Natural Resources Current Personal services 153,484 153,484 136,156 17,328 Materials and supplies 21,200 21,200 36,967 (15,767) Other services and charges 310,100 310,100 256,284 53,816 Total natural resources 484,784 484,784 429,407 55,377 Total parks and recreation 6,491,057 6,491,057 6,401,978 89,079 Other Sustainability Current Personal services - - 25,794 (25,794) Other services and charges - - 488 (488) Total Sustainability - - 26,282 (26,282) Total other - - 26,282 (26,282) Total expenditures 39,087,692 39,087,692 38,629,942 457,750 Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,298,033) (2,298,033) (135,263) 2,257,024 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 1,999,877 1,999,877 2,012,706 12,829 Transfers out - - (300,000) (300,000) Total other financing sources (uses) 1,999,877 1,999,877 1,712,706 (287,171) Net change in fund balances (298,156)$ (298,156)$ 1,577,443 1,969,853$ Fund balance - January 1 19,254,384 Fund balance - December 31 20,831,827$ Actual Amounts Variance with Final Budget See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information.98 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 112 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 2019 2018 Total OPEB Liabilty: Service cost 312,898$ 273,798$ Interest cost 122,728 126,654 Changes in benefit terms - - Differences between expected and actual experience 269,604 - Changes in assumptions (170,614) 120,221 Benefit payments (211,503) (140,966) Net change in total OPEB liability 323,113 379,707 Total OPEB liability - beginning 3,500,643 3,120,936 Total OPEB liability - ending 3,823,756$ 3,500,643$ Covered-employee payroll $23,867,837 $22,206,835 Total OPEB liabilty as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 16.0% 15.8% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be added as they become available. See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information. 99 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 113 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF NET PENSION LIABILITY - GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND Last Ten Years City's Proportionate State's Share of the City's Proportionate Net Pension Proportionate Plan City's City's Share (Amount) Liability and the Share of the Fiduciary Proportionate Proportionate of the Net State's Proportionate Net Pension Net Position Share Share (Amount) Pension Share of the Net Liability as a as a Measurement Fiscal Year (Percentage) of of the Net Liability Pension Liability Percentage of its Percentage Date Ending the Net Pension Pension Associated with Associated with Covered Covered of the Total June 30 December 31 Liability Liability (a) City (b) City (a+b) Payroll (c) Payroll ((a+b)/c) Pension Liability 2015 2015 0.2263% 11,728,040$ -$ 11,728,040$ 13,317,871$ 88.1%78.2% 2016 2016 0.2258% 18,333,840 239,395 18,573,235 14,027,206 132.4%68.9% 2017 2017 0.2269% 14,485,146 182,131 14,667,277 14,714,583 99.7%75.9% 2018 2018 0.2307% 12,798,290 419,668 13,217,958 15,513,575 85.2%79.5% 2019 2019 0.2358% 13,036,854 405,149 13,442,003 16,684,548 80.6%80.2% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information. 100 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 114 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 12 SCHEDULE OF PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS - GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND Last Ten Years Statutorily Contributions in Contribution Contributions as a Required Relation to the Deficiency Covered Percentage of Fiscal Year Contribution Statutorily Required (Excess) Payroll Covered Ending (a) Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c) December 31, 2015 1,026,806$ 1,026,806$ -$ 13,690,747$ 7.50% December 31, 2016 1,076,319 1,076,319 - 14,350,435 7.50% December 31, 2017 1,122,359 1,122,359 - 14,965,469 7.50% December 31, 2018 1,206,070 1,206,070 - 16,080,867 7.50% December 31, 2019 1,270,160 1,270,160 - 16,935,462 7.50% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information. 101 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 115 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 13 SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF NET PENSION LIABILITY - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND Last Ten Years Proportionate Share Proportionate of the Net Pension Plan Fiduciary Proportion Share (Amount)Liability as a Net Position as Measurement Fiscal Year (Percentage) of of the Net Percentage of its a Percentage Date Ending the Net Pension Pension Covered Covered of the Total June 30 December 31 Liability Liability (a) Payroll (b) Payroll (a/b) Pension Liability 2015 2015 0.7170%8,146,798$ 6,568,763$ 124.0%86.6% 2016 2016 0.7090%28,453,404 6,826,711 416.8%63.9% 2017 2017 0.7010%9,464,334 7,214,850 131.2%85.4% 2018 2018 0.7220%7,695,776 7,675,241 100.3%88.8% 2019 2019 0.7803%8,307,082 8,227,972 101.0%89.3% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information. 102 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 116 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 14 SCHEDULE OF PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND Last Ten Years Statutorily Contributions in Contribution Contributions as a Required Relation to the Deficiency Covered Percentage of Fiscal Year Contribution Statutorily Required (Excess) Payroll Covered Ending (a) Contribution (b)(a-b)(c)Payroll (b/c) December 31, 2015 1,087,225$ 1,087,225$ -$ 6,711,265$ 16.20% December 31, 2016 1,127,487 1,127,487 - 6,959,796 16.20% December 31, 2017 1,210,648 1,210,648 - 7,473,136 16.20% December 31, 2018 1,284,219 1,284,219 - 7,927,279 16.20% December 31, 2019 1,433,661 1,433,661 - 8,458,178 16.95% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available. See accompanying notes to the required supplementary information. 103 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 117 - This page intentionally left blank - 104 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 118 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2019 Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the major funds. Note B MODIFIED APPROACH FOR CITY STREETS AND TRAILS INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL ASSETS In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City is required to account for and report infrastructure capital assets. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets including the street and trail system; water treatment and distribution system; wastewater collection system; park and recreation lands and improvement system; storm water conveyance system; and building combined with site amenities such as parking and landscape areas used by the City in the conduct of its business. Each major infrastructure can be divided into subsystems. For example, the street and trail system can be divided into pavement widths, curb type and sidewalk. City owned streets could further be classified as collector or local. Subsystem detail is not presented in these basic financial statements; however, the City maintains detailed information on these subsystems. The City elects to use the modified approach as defined in GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting for its Pavement Management Program. Under GASB Statement No. 34, eligible infrastructure capital assets are not required to be depreciated under the following requirements: 1) The City manages the eligible infrastructure capital assets using an asset management system with characteristics of (1) an up to-date inventory; (2) perform condition assessments and summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (3) estimate annual amount to maintain and preserve at the established condition assessment level. 2) The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level. The City’s policy relative to maintaining the street and trail assets is to achieve an average rating of “Good” for all segments. This acceptable rating allows minor cracking and patching of the pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to the users of the system. 105 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 119 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2019 In 2017, the City conducted a physical condition assessment of four of eight areas of the City. Going forward two areas will be assessed each year. Each street segment was assigned a physical condition based on potential defects. An Overall Condition Index (OCI) was assigned to each street and expressed in a continuous scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is assigned to the least acceptable physical condition and 100 is assigned the physical characteristics of a new street. The following conditions were defined: Range Description 86 - 100 Excellent 71 - 85 Very good 56 - 70 Good 41 - 55 Fair 26 - 40 Poor 11 - 25 Very poor 0 - 10 Failed As of December 31, 2019, the City’s street and trail system was rated at an OCI index of 64 on the average with detail condition as follows: The City’s streets are constantly deteriorating resulting from the following factors: (1) traffic using the system; (2) the sun’s ultra-violet rays drying out and breaking down the top layer of pavement; (3) utility company/private development trenching operations; (4) water damage from natural precipitation; and (5) frost heave. The City is continuously taking actions to prolong the life of the system through short-term maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coating and overlaying. The City expended $5,379,721 on street maintenance for the year ending December 31, 2019. These expenditures delayed deterioration; however, the overall condition of the system was not improved through these maintenance expenditures. The City has estimated that the amount of annual expenditures through 2028 required to maintain the City’s street system at the average OCI rating of “good” is approximately $4,399,000. Year Maintenance Estimate Actual Expenditures OCI Rating 2017 4,255,000$ 4,494,315$ 67% 2018 4,839,000 4,201,721 67% 2019 4,399,000 5,379,721 64% Condition % of Streets and Trails Excellent to Good 59.5% Fair 14.2% Poor to Substandard 26.3% 106 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 120 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2019 Note C PENSION INFORMATION PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund 2019 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions - The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018 Changes in the Plan Provisions - The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31.0 million to $21.0 million per year. The State’s special funding contribution was changed prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031. 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017. - The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2044 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.25 percent per year. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) loads were changed from 0.8 percent for active members and 60 percent for vested and non-vested deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.0 percent for active member liability, 15.0 percent for vested deferred member liability and 3.0 percent for non- vested deferred member liability. - The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0 percent per year for all years to 1.0 percent per year through 2044 and 2.5 percent per year thereafter. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. - The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. - Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. PERA – Public Employees Police and Fire Fund 2019 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions - The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018 Changes in the Plan Provisions - There have been no changes since the prior valuation. 107 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 121 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2019 2018 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017. 2017 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The single discount rate was changed from 5.6% to 7.5%. - Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2016 experience study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34 percent lower than the previous rates. - Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements. - The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) load was 30 percent for vested and non-vested deferred members. The CSA has been changed to 33 percent for vested members and 2 percent for non- vested members. - The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees. - Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3.0 percent for the first three years of service. Rates beyond the select period of three years were adjusted, resulting in more expected terminations overall. - Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65 percent to 60 percent. - Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females. - The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor annuities was increased. - The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00 percent for all years to 1.00 percent per year through 2064 and 2.50 percent thereafter. 2016 Changes Changes in Actuarial Assumptions: - The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years. - The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate changed from 7.9% to 5.6%. - The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. 108 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 122 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2019 Note D OPEB INFORMATION No assets are accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 75 to pay related benefits. There are no factors that affect trends in the amounts reported, such as changes in benefit terms or assumptions. 109 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 123 - This page intentionally left blank - 110 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 124 COMBINING FUND STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES 111 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 125 - This page intentionally left blank - 112 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 126 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 113 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 127 - This page intentionally left blank - 114 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 128 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS The Capital Projects Funds account for financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets. 115 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 129 - This page intentionally left blank - 116 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 130 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 15 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2019 Special Capital Revenue Projects Total Assets Cash and investments 1,629,151$ 1,864,591$ 3,493,742$ Due from other governments - 22,351 22,351 Accounts receivable 140,031 1,009,012 1,149,043 Prepaid items - 6,500 6,500 Special assessments receivable - delinquent - 4,748 4,748 Special assessments receivable - deferred 212,672 618,183 830,855 Loans receivable - noncurrent 493,055 - 493,055 Pledges receivable - current - 100,000 100,000 Pledges receivable - noncurrent - 1,050,000 1,050,000 Total assets 2,474,909$ 4,675,385$ 7,150,294$ Liabilities Accounts payable 61,006$ 4,983$ 65,989$ Salaries payable 25,275 - 25,275 Due to other governments - 63,064 63,064 Contracts payable - 356,757 356,757 Due to other funds - - - Unearned revenue - 245,343 245,343 Total liabilities 86,281 670,147 756,428 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue 261,074 1,772,931 2,034,005 Fund balances Nonspendable - 6,500 6,500 Restricted 729,021 2,873,127 3,602,148 Committed 632,529 - 632,529 Assigned 766,004 3,242,261 4,008,265 Unassigned - (3,889,581) (3,889,581) Total fund balances 2,127,554 2,232,307 4,359,861 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 2,474,909$ 4,675,385$ 7,150,294$ 117 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 131 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 16 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Special Capital Revenue Projects Total Revenues Property taxes -$ 810,000$ 810,000$ Franchise taxes 571,416 3,641,312 4,212,728 Intergovernmental 60,000 44,702 104,702 Charges for services 24,215 9,850 34,065 Special assessments 207,240 163,465 370,705 Interest income 41,961 186,290 228,251 Miscellaneous 16,896 604,507 621,403 Total revenues 921,728 5,460,126 6,381,854 Expenditures Current Public safety - 107,834 107,834 Public information 477,150 - 477,150 Parks and recreation - 169,757 169,757 Operations - 9,256,534 9,256,534 Housing maintenance 60,315 - 60,315 Social and economic development 299,957 - 299,957 Capital outlay Public safety - 180,556 180,556 Public information 18,323 - 18,323 Parks and recreation - 1,550,776 1,550,776 Operations - 11,011 11,011 Debt service Bond issuance costs - 23,057 23,057 Total expenditures 855,745 11,299,525 12,155,270 Revenues over (under) expenditures 65,983 (5,839,399) (5,773,416) Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in - (205,201) (205,201) Transfers out (34,506) (22,829) (57,335) Bonds issued - 3,134,923 3,134,923 Premiums on bonds issue - 229,062 229,062 Total other financing sources (uses) (34,506) 3,135,955 3,101,449 Net change in fund balances 31,477 (2,703,444) (2,671,967) Fund balances - January 1 2,096,077 4,935,751 7,031,828 Fund balances - December 31 2,127,554$ 2,232,307$ 4,359,861$ 118 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 132 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Cable Television Fund – used to account for revenues received from franchise fees and expenditures related to regulation of the privately owned cable television company. Community Development Fund – used to account for funds received under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Special Service Districts Fund – used to account for the operations of Special Service Districts. Revenues are received from each district’s property owners and are used to provide additional services, primarily snow removal, within each District. Affordable Housing Trust – used to account for the operations related to supporting and expanding efforts to maintain and support naturally occurring affordable housing and other housing opportunities. 119 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 133 - This page intentionally left blank - 120 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 134 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 17 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2019 Assets Cash and investments 1,475,507$ 17,187$ 131,942$ 4,515$ 1,629,151$ Accounts receivable 140,031 - - - 140,031 Special assessments receivable - deferred - - 212,672 - 212,672 Loans receivable - noncurrent - 493,055 - - 493,055 Total assets 1,615,538$ 510,242$ 344,614$ 4,515$ 2,474,909$ Liabilities Accounts payable 3,670$ -$ 57,336$ -$ 61,006$ Salaries payable 25,275 - - - 25,275 Total liabilities 28,945 - 57,336 - 86,281 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue - 48,402 212,672 - 261,074 Fund balances Restricted 262,666 461,840 - 4,515 729,021 Committed 632,529 - - - 632,529 Assigned 691,398 - 74,606 - 766,004 Total fund balances 1,586,593 461,840 74,606 4,515 2,127,554 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 1,615,538$ 510,242$ 344,614$ 4,515$ 2,474,909$ Cable Television Community Development Affordable Housing Trust Total Special Service Districts 121 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 135 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES,Statement 18 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Revenues Franchise taxes 571,416$ -$ -$ -$ 571,416$ Intergovernmental - 60,000 - - 60,000 Charges for services - - 24,215 - 24,215 Special assessments - - 207,240 - 207,240 Interest income 39,432 327 2,085 117 41,961 Miscellaneous 10,505 - 1,993 4,398 16,896 Total revenues 621,353 60,327 235,533 4,515 921,728 Expenditures Current Public information Personal services 412,648 - - - 412,648 Supplies 337 - - - 337 Other services and charges 64,165 - - - 64,165 Housing maintenance Other services and charges - 60,315 - - 60,315 Social and economic development Supplies - - 19,398 - 19,398 Other services and charges - - 280,559 - 280,559 Capital outlay Public information 18,323 - - - 18,323 Total expenditures 495,473 60,315 299,957 - 855,745 Revenues over (under) expenditures 125,880 12 (64,424) 4,515 65,983 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers out (34,506) - - - (34,506) Net change in fund balances 91,374 12 (64,424) 4,515 31,477 Fund balances - January 1 1,495,219 461,828 139,030 - 2,096,077 Fund balances - December 31 1,586,593$ 461,840$ 74,606$ 4,515$ 2,127,554$ Cable Television Community Development Special Service Districts Total Affordable Housing Trust 122 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 136 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Police and Fire Pension Fund – used to account for pension refunds received by the police and fire departments. These funds must be used for specific police and fire purposes. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund – used to account for the resources and expenditures required for capital improvements which will provide a direct or significant indirect benefit to individual property owners. Financing of these projects is provided by shared costs with other organizations, Municipal State Aid and special assessements. Park Improvement Fund – used to account for the financing of land acquisition and development for park purposes. Revenues are provided by park dedication fees, a school district contribution, rent and a property tax levy. Sidewalks and Trails Fund – used to account for Connect The Park projects to construct sidewalks, trails and bikeways. Revenues will be provided by the issuance of general obligation bonds. Pavement Management Fund – used to account for the financing of street rehabilitation. Revenues are provided by a franchise fee and transfers from the Sanitary Sewer Utility and Water Utility Funds. 123 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 137 - This page intentionally left blank - 124 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 138 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 19 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS December 31, 2019 Police and Fire Pensions Permanent Improvement Revolving Park Improvement Sidewalks and Trails Pavement Management Interfund Eliminations Total Assets Cash and investments 1,409,975$ 453,014$ -$ 1,602$ -$ -$ 1,864,591$ Due from other governments - - 22,351 - - - 22,351 Accounts receivable - 1,863 850 - 1,006,299 - 1,009,012 Prepaid items - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 Special assessments receivable - delinquent - 4,748 - - - - 4,748 Special assessments receivable - deferred - 618,183 - - - - 618,183 Due from other funds - 2,787,748 - - - (2,787,748) - Pledges receivable - current - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Pledges receivable - noncurrent - - 1,050,000 - - - 1,050,000 Total assets 1,409,975$ 3,865,556$ 1,173,201$ 1,602$ 1,012,799$ (2,787,748)$ 4,675,385$ Liabilities Accounts payable -$ -$ 3,683$ 1,300$ -$ -$ 4,983$ Due to other governments - 364 62,700 - - - 63,064 Contracts payable - - - - 356,757 - 356,757 Due to other funds - - 420,196 434,182 1,933,370 (2,787,748) - Unearned revenue - - 245,343 - - - 245,343 Total liabilities - 364 731,922 435,482 2,290,127 (2,787,748) $670,147 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue - 622,931 1,150,000 - - - 1,772,931 Fund balances Nonspendable - - - - 6,500 - 6,500 Restricted 1,409,975 - - 1,463,152 - - 2,873,127 Assigned - 3,242,261 - - - - 3,242,261 Unassigned - - (708,721) (1,897,032) (1,283,828) - (3,889,581) Total fund balances 1,409,975 3,242,261 (708,721) (433,880) (1,277,328) - 2,232,307 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 1,409,975$ 3,865,556$ 1,173,201$ 1,602$ 1,012,799$ (2,787,748)$ $4,675,385 125 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 139 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES,Statement 20 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Police and Fire Pensions Permanent Improvement Revolving Park Improvement Sidewalks and Trails Pavement Management Inter-Fund Eliminations Total Revenues Property taxes -$ -$ 810,000$ -$ -$ -$ 810,000$ Franchise taxes - - - - 3,641,312 - 3,641,312 Intergovernmental - - 44,702 - - - 44,702 Charges for services - - 9,850 - - - 9,850 Special assessments - 163,465 - - - - 163,465 Interest income 39,703 87,643 539 60,461 (2,056) - 186,290 Miscellaneous 550 2,614 601,343 - - - 604,507 Total revenues 40,253 253,722 1,466,434 60,461 3,639,256 - 5,460,126 Expenditures Current Public safety 104,243 3,591 - - - - 107,834 Parks and recreation - - 169,757 - - - 169,757 Operations - - - 4,055,384 5,201,150 - 9,256,534 Capital outlay Public safety 180,556 - - - - - 180,556 Parks and recreation - 1,772 1,549,004 - - - 1,550,776 Operations - - - 11,011 - - 11,011 Debt service Bond issuance costs - - - 23,057 - - 23,057 Total expenditures 284,799 5,363 1,718,761 4,089,452 5,201,150 - 11,299,525 Revenues over (under) expenditures (244,546) 248,359 (252,327) (4,028,991) (1,561,894) - (5,839,399) Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in - - - - - - - Transfers out - (22,829) - (26,630) (178,571) - (228,030) Bonds issued - - - 3,134,923 - - 3,134,923 Premiums on bonds issue - - - 229,062 - - 229,062 Total other financing sources (uses)- (22,829) - 3,337,355 (178,571) - 3,135,955 Net change in fund balances (244,546) 225,530 (252,327) (691,636) (1,740,465) - (2,703,444) Fund balances - January 1 1,654,521 3,016,731 (456,394) 257,756 463,137 - 4,935,751 Fund balances - December 31 1,409,975$ 3,242,261$ (708,721)$ (433,880)$ (1,277,328)$ -$ 2,232,307$ Reconciliation of beginning fund balance to prior year ending fund balance: Prior year ending fund balance for nonmajor Capital Project Funds 2,089,031$ Less prior year ending fund balance for non-major funds reported as major in current year: Westwood Hills Nature Center Construction Project (1,086,169) Streets Capital Projects (1,760,551) Current year beginning fund balance 4,935,751$ 126 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 140 FUNDS INCLUDED IN DEBT SERVICE FUND 2010A General Obligation Bonds 2012A General Obligation HIA Bonds 2014A General Obligation Bonds 2010D General Obligation Fire Station Bonds 2016A General Obligation Bonds 2000 General Obligation Bond Reserve 2010C General Obligation Bonds 2010C General Obligation Bond Reserve Fund Hoigaard’s 2010 A & B TIF Notes 2008B General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds 2017A General Obligation Bonds 2018A General Obligation Bonds 2019A General Obligation Bonds 127 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 141 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DEBT SERVICE FUND December 31, 2019 2010A General Obligation Bond 2010D General Obligation Fire Station Bond 2014A General Obligation Bonds 2016A General Obligation Bonds Assets Cash and investments 20,522$ 9,734,864$ 645,010$ 1,249,079$ Due from other governments - 74,130 - - Loans receivable - current - - - - Loans receivable - noncurrent - - - - Total assets 20,522$ 9,808,994$ 645,010$ 1,249,079$ Liabilities Accounts payable -$ 150$ -$ -$ Deposits payable - - - - Unearned revenue - 12,355 - - Total liabilities - 12,505 - - Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue - - - - Fund balances Restricted 20,522 9,796,489 645,010 1,249,079 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 20,522$ 9,808,994$ 645,010$ 1,249,079$ 128 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 142 Statement 21 2000 General Obligation Bond Reserve 2010C General Obligation Bond 2010C General Obligation Bond Reserve 2017A General Obligation Bonds 2018A General Obligation Bonds 2019A General Obligation Bonds Total 121,105$ 75,919$ 341,341$ 344,321$ 216,144$ 962,164$ 13,710,469$ - - - - - - 74,130 - 45,000 - - - - 45,000 - 1,435,000 - - - - 1,435,000 121,105$ 1,555,919$ 341,341$ 344,321$ 216,144$ 962,164$ 15,264,599$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150$ - - 328,586 - - - 328,586 - - - - - - 12,355 - - 328,586 - - - 341,091 - 1,480,000 - - - - 1,480,000 121,105 75,919 12,755 344,321 216,144 962,164 13,443,508 121,105$ 1,555,919$ 341,341$ 344,321$ 216,144$ 962,164$ 15,264,599$ 129 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 143 - This page intentionally left blank - 130 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 144 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES,Statement 22 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES Page 1 of 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 2010A General Obligation Bond 2012A General Obligation HIA Bonds 2014A General Obligation Bonds 2010D General Obligation Fire Station Bond Revenues Taxes Property taxes -$ -$ 591,150$ 926,735$ Intergovernmental - - - 148,555 Special assessments 48,814 - - - Interest income 12,887 - 8,748 120,556 Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 61,701 - 599,898 1,195,846 Expenditures Social and economic development Developer assistance - - - - Debt service Principal 130,000 55,000 480,000 575,000 Interest and other 155,270 31,713 78,790 464,078 Bond issuance costs 45,779 - - 81,078 Total expenditures 331,049 86,713 558,790 1,120,156 Revenues over (under) expenditures (269,348) (86,713) 41,108 75,690 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 244,990 86,713 - - Transfers out - - - - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent (2,160,000) - - - Refunding bonds issued 2,200,000 - - 7,585,000 Bonds issued - - - - Premium on bonds 4,880 - - 1,106,078 Total other financing sources (uses)289,870 86,713 - 8,691,078 Net change in fund balances 20,522 - 41,108 8,766,768 Fund balances - January 1 - - 603,902 1,029,721 Fund balances - December 31 20,522$ -$ 645,010$ 9,796,489$ 131 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 145 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES DEBT SERVICE FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 2016A General Obligation Bonds 2000 General Obligation Bond Reserve 2010C General Obligation Bond 2010C General Obligation Bond Reserve Revenues Taxes Property taxes 1,234,255$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - - - - - - - - Interest income 15,694 2,344 665 6,064 Miscellaneous - - 119,342 - Total revenues 1,249,949 2,344 120,007 6,064 Expenditures Social and economic development Developer assistance - - - - Debt service Principal 975,000 - 40,000 - Interest and other 188,453 - 77,382 - Bond issuance costs - - - - Total expenditures 1,163,453 - 117,382 - Revenues over (under) expenditures 86,496 2,344 2,625 6,064 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in - - 2,344 - Transfers out - (2,344) - - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - - - - Refunding bonds issued - - - - Bonds issued - - - - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)- (2,344) 2,344 - Net change in fund balances 86,496 - 4,969 6,064 Fund balances - January 1 1,162,583 121,105 70,950 6,691 Fund balances - December 31 1,249,079$ 121,105$ 75,919$ 12,755$ 132 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 146 Statement 22 Page 2 of 2 Hoigaard's 2010 A & B TIF Notes 2008B General Obligation Tax Increment Bond 2017A General Obligation Bonds 2018A General Obligation Bonds 2019A General Obligation Bonds Interfund Eliminations Total -$ -$ 417,572$ 250,845$ -$ -$ 3,420,557$ - - - - 118,865 - 267,420 - - - - - - 48,814 - - 3,579 2,513 23,950 - 197,000 - - - - - - 119,342 - - 421,151 253,358 142,815 - 4,053,133 368,075 - - - - - 368,075 - 435,000 300,000 - - - 2,990,000 - 126,087 92,955 84,229 1,218 - 1,300,175 - - - - - - 126,857 368,075 561,087 392,955 84,229 1,218 - 4,785,107 (368,075) (561,087) 28,196 169,129 141,597 - (731,974) 368,075 561,087 - - - (2,344) 1,260,865 - - - - - 2,344 - - - - - - - (2,160,000) - - - - - - 9,785,000 - - - - 440,567 - 440,567 - - - - - - 1,110,958 368,075 561,087 - - 440,567 - 10,437,390 - - 28,196 169,129 582,164 - 9,705,416 - - 316,125 47,015 380,000 - 3,738,092 -$ -$ 344,321$ 216,144$ 962,164$ -$ 13,443,508$ 133 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 147 - This page intentionally left blank - 134 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 148 FUNDS INCLUDED IN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUND Duke West End TIF Eliot Park TIF Ellipse TIF District HRA Levy Victoria Ponds Park Center Housing CSM TIF District Mill City TIF District Park Commons TIF District Edgewood TIF District Elmwood Village Wolfe Lake TIF District Aquila Commons Highway 7 Business Center Hard Coat TIF District Shoreham TIF District Excelsior Blvd TIF District Elmwood Apartments TIF District 135 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 149 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUND December 31, 2019 Duke West End TIF Eliot Park TIF Ellipse TIF District HRA Levy Assets Cash and investments 1,680,461$ 273,655$ 629,742$ 767$ Taxes receivable - unremitted - - - - Taxes receivable - delinquent - - - 11,547 Interfund loan receivable - - - - Loans receivable - noncurrent - - - - Total assets 1,680,461$ 273,655$ 629,742$ 12,314$ Liabilities Accounts payable 644$ 644$ 3,644$ -$ Due to other governments 328,663 1,085 1,333 - Interfund loan payable 497,457 - - - Total liabilities 826,764 1,729 4,977 - Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue - - - 11,547 Fund balances Restricted 853,697 271,926 624,765 767 Unassigned - - - - Total fund balances 853,697 271,926 624,765 767 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 1,680,461$ 273,655$ 629,742$ 12,314$ 136 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 150 Statement 23 Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ponds Park Center Housing CSM TIF District Mill City TIF District Park Commons TIF District 70,581$ 238,655$ 280,681$ 327,217$ 1,444,053$ - - 3,301 - 19,142 - - - - - 56,944 - - - - - 756,604 - - - 127,525$ 995,259$ 283,982$ 327,217$ 1,463,195$ -$ 297$ 644$ 644$ 644$ 571 752 1,467 1,231 6,406 - - - - - 571 1,049 2,111 1,875 7,050 - 113,598 - - - 126,954 880,612 281,871 325,342 1,456,145 - - - - - 126,954 880,612 281,871 325,342 1,456,145 127,525$ 995,259$ 283,982$ 327,217$ 1,463,195$ 137 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 151 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUND December 31, 2019 Edgewood TIF District Elmwood Village Wolfe Lake TIF District Aquila Commons Assets Cash and investments 11,268$ 1,026,265$ 120,359$ 387,292$ Taxes receivable - unremitted - 7,768 - - Taxes receivable - delinquent - - - - Interfund loan receivable - - - - Loans receivable - noncurrent - - - - Total assets 11,268$ 1,034,033$ 120,359$ 387,292$ Liabilities Accounts payable -$ 297$ 3,644$ 297$ Due to other governments 611 5,075 716 1,153 Interfund loan payable - 3,015,426 - - Total liabilities 611 3,020,798 4,360 1,450 Deferred inflows of resources Unavailable revenue - - - - Fund balances Restricted 10,657 - 115,999 385,842 Unassigned - (1,986,765) - - . Total fund balances 10,657 (1,986,765) 115,999 385,842 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balances 11,268$ 1,034,033$ 120,359$ 387,292$ 138 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 152 Statement 23 Page 2 of 2 Highway 7 Business Center Hard Coat TIF District Shoreham TIF District Excelsior Blvd TIF District Elmwood Apartments TIF District Interfund Eliminations Total 74,028$ 25,661$ 345,348$ 257,341$ 4,475$ -$ 7,197,849$ - - - - - - 30,211 - - - - - - 11,547 - - - - - (56,944) - - - - - - - 756,604 74,028$ 25,661$ 345,348$ 257,341$ 4,475$ (56,944)$ 7,996,211$ 644$ -$ 644$ 645$ -$ -$ 13,332$ 711 - 1,252 1,138 544 - 352,708 - 56,944 - - - (56,944) 3,512,883 1,355 56,944 1,896 1,783 544 (56,944) 3,878,923 - - - - - - 125,145 72,673 - 343,452 255,558 3,931 - 6,010,191 - (31,283) - - - - (2,018,048) 72,673 (31,283) 343,452 255,558 3,931 - 3,992,143 74,028$ 25,661$ 345,348$ 257,341$ 4,475$ (56,944)$ 7,996,211$ 139 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 153 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Duke West End TIF Eliot Park TIF Ellipse TIF District HRA Levy Revenues Taxes Property taxes -$ -$ -$ 1,218,880$ Tax increments 2,501,579 451,586 666,760 - Abatement of property taxes (140,785) (99,889) - (3,320) Interest income 15,302 2,362 8,705 1,518 Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 2,376,096 354,059 675,465 1,217,078 Expenditures Current Social and economic development 2,033,899 316,214 183,233 15,199 Debt service Interest and other 19,086 - - 28,778 Total expenditures 2,052,985 316,214 183,233 43,977 Revenues over (under) expenditures 323,111 37,845 492,232 1,173,101 Other financing (uses) Transfers out (561,087) - - (64,493) Net change in fund balances (237,976) 37,845 492,232 1,108,608 Fund balances - January 1 1,091,673 234,081 132,533 (1,107,841) Fund balances - December 31 853,697$ 271,926$ 624,765$ 767$ 140 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 154 Statement 24 Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ponds Park Center Housing CSM TIF District Mill City TIF District Park Commons TIF District Edgewood TIF District -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 180,010 520,653 580,635 2,760,182 60,395 - - - - (2,406) - 3,893 7,438 1,319 1,935 10,137 - - - - - - - 3,893 187,448 521,972 582,570 2,767,913 60,395 250,609 5,053 954,763 692,913 2,571,776 49,738 - - - - - - 250,609 5,053 954,763 692,913 2,571,776 49,738 (246,716) 182,395 (432,791) (110,343) 196,137 10,657 - (160,000) - - - - (246,716) 22,395 (432,791) (110,343) 196,137 10,657 373,670 858,217 714,662 435,685 1,260,008 - 126,954$ 880,612$ 281,871$ 325,342$ 1,456,145$ 10,657$ 141 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 155 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Elmwood Village Wolfe Lake TIF District Revenues Taxes Property taxes -$ -$ Tax increments 2,014,165 146,024 Abatement of property taxes - - Interest income 9,830 1,634 Miscellaneous - - Total revenues 2,023,995 147,658 Expenditures Current Social and economic development 245,350 128,273 Debt service Interest and other 115,978 - Total expenditures 361,328 128,273 Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,662,667 19,385 Other financing (uses) Transfers out (775,945) - Net change in fund balances 886,722 19,385 Fund balances - January 1 (2,873,487) 96,614 Fund balances - December 31 (1,986,765)$ 115,999$ 142 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 156 Statement 24 Page 2 of 2 Aquila Commons Highway 7 Business Center Hard Coat TIF District Shoreham TIF District Excelsior Blvd TIF District Elmwood Apartments TIF District Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,218,880$ 210,340 142,195 23,823 600,991 504,580 4,414 11,368,332 (62) - - - - - (246,462) 7,865 423 894 7,488 2,389 61 83,193 - - - - - - - 218,143 142,618 24,717 608,479 506,969 4,475 12,423,943 5,868 140,406 25 626,954 218,258 544 8,439,075 - - 3,152 269 1,182 - 168,445 5,868 140,406 3,177 627,223 219,440 544 8,607,520 212,275 2,212 21,540 (18,744) 287,529 3,931 3,816,423 - - - - - - (1,561,525) 212,275 2,212 21,540 (18,744) 287,529 3,931 2,254,898 173,567 70,461 (52,823) 362,196 (31,971) - 1,737,245 385,842$ 72,673$ (31,283)$ 343,452$ 255,558$ 3,931$ 3,992,143$ 143 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 157 - This page intentionally left blank - 144 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 158 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS The City has three Internal Service Funds to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the City, or to other governments on a cost reimbursement basis. The City’s internal service funds account for employee benefits including pensions and other postemployment benefits, uninsured loss and capital replacement. 145 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 159 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 25 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2019 Employee Benefits Uninsured Loss Capital Replacement Total Assets Current assets Cash and investments 138,239$ 541,542$ 669,964$ 1,349,745$ Accrued interest receivable - - - - Due from other governments 21,610 - 959 22,569 Accounts receivable - - 276 276 Prepaid items 390,635 80,821 72,193 543,649 Deposits receivable - - - - Inventories - - - - Total current assets 550,484 622,363 743,392 1,916,239 Noncurrent assets Capital assets, at cost Land - - 818,094 818,094 Building and structures - - 9,451,756 9,451,756 Improvements other than buildings - - 2,517,832 2,517,832 Infrastructure - - 1,313,801 1,313,801 Machinery, furniture and equipment - - 9,387,687 9,387,687 Fleet - - 10,414,604 10,414,604 Construction in progress - - 193,950 193,950 Total capital assets, at cost - - 34,097,724 34,097,724 Less: accumulated depreciation - - (13,479,262) (13,479,262) Total noncurrent assets - - 20,618,462 20,618,462 Total assets 550,484 622,363 21,361,854 22,534,701 Deferred outflows of resources Related to pensions 12,038,538 - - 12,038,538 Related to OPEB 328,824 - - 328,824 Total deferred outflows of resources 12,367,362 - - 12,367,362 Liabilities Current liabilities Accounts payable 20,022 16,327 89,267 125,616 Salaries payable - - - - Accrued flex spending 16,700 - - 16,700 Due to other governments 1,788 - 27,464 29,252 Contracts payable - - - - Compensated absences payable - current 2,661,698 - - 2,661,698 Capital lease payable - current - - 59,378 59,378 Other postemployment benefits payable 214,270 - - 214,270 Total current liabilities 2,914,478 16,327 176,109 2,892,644 Noncurrent liabilities Compensated absences payable 1,366,112 - - 1,366,112 Capital lease payable - - 61,627 61,627 Other postemployment benefits payable 3,609,486 - - 3,609,486 Net pension liability 21,343,936 - - 21,343,936 Total noncurrent liabilities 26,319,534 - 61,627 26,381,161 Total liabilities 29,234,012 16,327 237,736 29,273,805 Deferred inflows of resources Related to pensions 16,406,789 - - 16,406,789 Related to OPEB 150,612 - - 150,612 Total deferred inflows of resources 16,557,401 - - 16,557,401 Net position Net investment in capital assets - - 20,497,457 20,497,457 Unrestricted (32,873,567) 606,036 626,661 (31,640,870) Total net position (32,873,567)$ 606,036$ 21,124,118$ (11,143,413)$ 146 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 160 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND Statement 26 CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Employee Benefits Uninsured Loss Capital Replacement Total Operating revenues Charges for services 2,703,821$ -$ 1,451,027$ 4,154,848$ Other 264,374 53,379 54,921 372,674 Total operating revenues 2,968,195 53,379 1,505,948 4,527,522 Operating expenses Personal services 4,465,465 31,932 - 4,497,397 Supplies - - 722,942 722,942 Professional services 76,646 - 76,901 153,547 Insurance, deductibles and unisured losses - 184,688 - 184,688 Depreciation - - 1,964,595 1,964,595 Other 27,526 397 853,095 881,018 Total operating expenses 4,569,637 217,017 3,617,533 8,404,187 Operating income (loss)(1,601,442) (163,638) (2,111,585) (3,876,665) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Interest income 39,772 11,672 1,837 53,281 Property taxes 150,000 - 1,767,700 1,917,700 Intergovernmental revenue 157,292 - 325,808 483,100 Gain on disposal of capital assets - - 178,509 178,509 Interest expense - - (7,234) (7,234) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)347,064 11,672 2,266,620 2,625,356 Income (loss) before transfers (1,254,378) (151,966) 155,035 (1,251,309) Capital contributions - capital assets - - 15,478 15,478 Transfers in 150,000 150,000 134,904 434,904 Change in net position (1,104,378) (1,966) 305,417 (800,927) Net position - January 1 (31,769,189) 608,002 20,818,701 (10,342,486) Net position - December 31 (32,873,567)$ 606,036$ 21,124,118$ (11,143,413)$ 147 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 161 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 27 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Page 1 of 2 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Employee Benefits Uninsured Loss Capital Replacement Total Cash flows from operating activities Receipts from interfund services provided 2,703,821$ -$ 1,451,027$ 4,154,848$ Other operating cash receipts 264,374 53,379 54,921 372,674 Payments to suppliers (406,490) (204,713) (2,158,343) (2,769,546) Payments to employees (3,948,085) (31,932) - (3,980,017) Net cash flows provided (used) by operating activities (1,386,380) (183,266) (652,395) (2,222,041) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities Property taxes 150,000 - 1,767,700 1,917,700 Intergovernmental receipts 135,682 - 325,808 461,490 Net cash flows provided (used) by noncapital financing activities 285,682 - 2,093,508 2,379,190 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities Transfers in 150,000 150,000 134,904 434,904 Acquisition of capital assets - - (2,213,576) (2,213,576) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - 403,644 403,644 Principal paid on capital lease - - (59,377) (59,377) Interest paid on capital lease - - (7,234) (7,234) Net cash flows provided (used) by and related financing activities 150,000 150,000 (1,741,639) (1,441,639) Cash flows from investing activities Interest received 44,126 13,023 1,837 58,986 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents (906,572) (20,243) (298,689) (1,225,504) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 830,541 561,785 968,653 2,360,979 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 (76,031)$ 541,542$ 669,964$ 1,135,475$ 148 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 162 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 27 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Page 2 of 2 For The Year Ended December 31, 2019 Employee Benefits Uninsured Loss Capital Replacement Total Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Operating income (loss)(1,601,442)$ (163,638)$ (2,111,585)$ (3,876,665)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities Depreciation - - 1,964,595 1,964,595 (Increase) decrease in assets/deferred outflows Accounts receivable - - - - Prepaid items 2,725 (5,075) (53,608) (55,958) Inventories - - - - Deferred outflows of resources 1,610,721 - - 1,610,721 Increase (decrease) in liabilities/deferred inflows Accounts payable (306,052) (14,553) (411,327) (731,932) Accrued flex spending (9,513) - - (9,513) Due to other governments 1,009 - (40,470) (39,461) Accrued salaries payable - - - - Compensated absences payable (67,794) - - (67,794) Other postemployment benefits 108,843 - - 108,843 Net pension liability 849,870 - - 849,870 Deferred inflows of resources (1,974,747) - - (1,974,747) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities (1,386,380)$ (183,266)$ (652,395)$ (2,222,041)$ Noncash capital and related financing activities Disposal of capital assets -$ -$ 1,291,037$ 1,291,037$ 149 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 163 - This page intentionally left blank - 150 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 164 III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) 151 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 165 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) NET POSITION BY COMPONENT LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 Governmental activities Net investment in capital assets 94,326,512$ 99,835,484$ 95,020,700$ 96,480,493$ Restricted 21,692,426 17,695,996 18,941,172 13,560,965 Unrestricted 40,581,189 43,929,086 46,413,200 45,688,600 Total governmental activities net position 156,600,127$ 161,460,566$ 160,375,072$ 155,730,058$ Business-type activities Net investment in capital assets 21,717,923$ 22,347,266$ 22,906,086$ 19,127,309$ Unrestricted 8,433,915 8,524,086 9,829,024 11,540,303 Total business-type activities net position 30,151,838$ 30,871,352$ 32,735,110$ 30,667,612$ Total primary government Net investment in capital assets 116,044,435$ 122,182,750$ 117,926,786$ 115,607,802$ Restricted 21,692,426 17,695,996 18,941,172 13,560,965 Unrestricted 49,015,104 52,453,172 56,242,224 57,228,903 Total primary government 186,751,965$ 192,331,918$ 193,110,182$ 186,397,670$ Note: GASB 65 was implemented in 2013. Net position was restated for 2012 to reflect the expenses of bond issuance costs in the year of issuance. Net position for years prior to 2012 was not restated. GASB 68 was implemented in 2015. Net position was restated for 2014 to reflect the reporting of net pension liability and pension related deferred outflows of resources. Net position for years prior to 2014 was not restated. Fiscal Year 152 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 166 Table 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 94,891,625$ 96,286,131$ 96,458,787$ 103,279,857$ 107,090,668$ 102,644,391$ 10,971,995 10,608,709 10,658,889 11,439,977 13,200,855 22,391,884 49,971,778 31,667,135 31,751,796 26,888,688 23,914,099 11,937,764 155,835,398$ 138,561,975$ 138,869,472$ 141,608,522$ 144,205,622$ 136,974,039$ 22,818,382$ 22,753,326$ 23,030,284$ 25,716,982$ 25,992,377$ 27,805,955$ 4,783,696 4,620,302 5,849,650 4,979,057 6,163,907 6,426,698 27,602,078$ 27,373,628$ 28,879,934$ 30,696,039$ 32,156,284$ 34,232,653$ 117,710,007$ 119,039,457$ 119,489,071$ 128,996,839$ 133,083,045$ 130,450,346$ 10,971,995 10,608,709 10,658,889 11,439,977 13,200,855 22,391,884 54,755,474 36,287,437 37,601,446 31,867,745 30,078,006 18,364,462 183,437,476$ 165,935,603$ 167,749,406$ 172,304,561$ 176,361,906$ 171,206,692$ Fiscal Year 153 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 167 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) CHANGES IN NET POSITION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (accrual basis of accounting) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Expenses Governmental activities General government 7,192,652$ 7,247,716$ 7,387,354$ 10,085,905$ Public safety 12,256,272 12,535,793 13,264,220 13,365,297 Public works 19,446,758 7,513,833 - - Public information 435,050 803,885 524,012 466,043 Culture and recreation 7,792,614 7,882,789 - - Parks and recreation - - - - Operations - - - - Operations and recreation - - 15,209,548 13,487,238 Engineering - - 5,253,969 16,046,665 Housing and rehabilitation 4,150,595 794,935 3,914,261 1,774,657 Housing maintenance 241,345 79,786 116,949 141,250 Social and economic development 4,861,518 6,171,527 7,810,635 9,040,280 General services - - - - Interest on long-term debt 1,453,555 1,695,758 1,245,294 1,295,298 Total governmental activities expenses 57,830,359 44,726,022 54,726,242 65,702,633 Business-type activities Water 3,904,801 3,839,592 3,890,860 5,747,116 Sewer 4,193,191 4,572,869 4,593,166 5,272,646 Solid Waste 2,116,949 2,319,099 2,562,985 3,614,118 Refuse - - - - Storm Water 1,325,803 1,373,546 1,485,390 1,390,235 Wireless - - - - Total business-type activities expenses 11,540,744 12,105,106 12,532,401 16,024,115 Total expenses 69,371,103$ 56,831,128$ 67,258,643$ 81,726,748$ Program revenues Governmental activities Charges for services General government 1,065,209$ 1,059,527$ 1,060,679$ 1,024,253$ Public safety 2,898,634 2,917,525 3,344,449 3,109,813 Public works 601,890 315,163 - - Public information - 200,000 - - Culture and recreation 1,959,556 2,111,348 2,438,841 - Operations and recreation - - - 2,035,715 Engineering - - - 1,032 Housing and rehabilitation 8,833 62,191 8,162 8,606 Housing maintenance - - - - Social and economic development 588,757 316,935 281,002 250,015 Interest on long-term debt - - - - Operating grants and contributions 1,735,926 2,065,312 2,360,465 2,709,644 Capital grants and contributions 14,908,522 1,878,697 6,290,076 11,881,109 Total governmental activities program revenue 23,767,327 10,926,698 15,783,674 21,020,187 Business-type activities Charges for services Water 4,148,394 4,475,068 5,109,446 5,037,067 Sewer 5,277,473 5,768,266 5,959,931 5,822,085 Solid Waste 2,719,376 2,894,726 2,858,930 2,912,415 Refuse - - - - Storm Water 1,829,792 1,904,587 1,977,663 2,054,915 Wireless - - - - Operating grants and contributions 103,342 103,166 105,976 135,642 Capital grants and contributions 2,890 - - - Total business-type activities program revenue 14,081,267 15,145,813 16,011,946 15,962,124 Total program revenues 37,848,594$ 26,072,511$ 31,795,620$ 36,982,311$ Fiscal Year 154 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 168 Table 2 Page 1 of 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 9,161,922$ 10,712,749$ 11,182,348$ 10,648,181$ 11,051,775$ 12,022,082$ 13,954,604 15,336,854 20,091,787 17,870,131 17,621,109 18,868,900 - - - - - - 507,928 3,057,509 549,940 647,316 642,350 594,521 - - - - - - - - - - - 7,463,862 - - - - - 20,692,741 13,318,552 9,996,885 13,352,637 13,448,470 15,146,290 - 21,045,392 10,185,956 5,091,818 7,859,907 7,491,753 - 909,051 707,661 528,467 480,911 530,192 1,001,834 130,534 84,505 144,204 72,244 19,768 89,828 8,058,914 8,872,479 8,826,281 10,987,654 12,549,378 16,536,420 - - - - - - 1,185,975 1,233,107 1,620,489 1,511,329 1,456,241 2,139,962 68,272,872 60,187,705 61,387,971 63,526,143 66,508,856 79,410,150 4,609,579 4,684,190 4,773,624 4,786,816 5,445,760 5,922,733 4,885,748 5,333,887 6,002,088 6,227,919 6,083,196 6,387,860 2,813,587 2,917,214 3,256,804 3,390,874 3,463,412 3,527,810 - - - - - 1,422,645 1,400,975 1,514,761 1,611,785 2,372,829 2,179,955 - - - - - - 13,731,559 14,336,266 15,547,277 16,017,394 17,365,197 18,018,358 82,004,431$ 74,523,971$ 76,935,248$ 79,543,537$ 83,874,053$ 97,428,508$ 1,142,294$ 1,185,881$ 1,184,122$ 1,143,220$ 1,214,710$ 1,231,454$ 3,477,244 4,237,819 4,354,793 3,962,306 4,049,914 5,212,202 - - - - - - - 10,000 - - - - - - - - 576 - 2,089,052 2,344,863 2,122,730 2,308,221 2,516,191 2,566,014 318,873 144,151 97,688 134,508 136,648 156,330 7,537 6,315 7,607 4,514 633,932 3,467 241 - - - - - 224,252 256,557 259,910 255,109 213,944 216,989 - - - - - 2,024,171 3,586,440 2,512,011 3,670,054 2,666,090 3,360,346 12,066,132 3,178,294 3,960,739 5,205,879 3,526,377 2,693,816 21,349,796 14,950,320 14,499,600 16,683,811 14,958,382 15,440,618 5,188,065 5,766,601 5,674,239 6,089,295 6,469,268 6,908,538 5,841,377 6,112,024 6,663,731 7,261,014 7,360,679 7,634,597 3,179,732 3,189,566 2,905,899 3,237,506 3,348,948 3,538,931 - - - - - - 2,246,201 2,472,134 2,642,860 2,816,349 2,887,425 3,059,282 - - - - - - 127,742 128,610 181,525 159,376 174,250 196,100 - - 799,894 279,801 429,928 556,508 16,583,117 17,668,935 18,868,148 19,843,341 20,670,498 21,893,956 37,932,913$ 32,619,255$ 33,367,748$ 36,527,152$ 35,628,880$ 37,334,574$ Fiscal Year 155 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 169 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) CHANGES IN NET POSITION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (accrual basis of accounting) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Net (expenses) revenues Governmental activities (34,063,032)$ (33,799,324)$ (38,942,568)$ (44,682,446)$ Business-type activities 2,540,523 3,040,707 3,479,545 (61,991) Total primary government (31,522,509)$ (30,758,617)$ (35,463,023)$ (44,744,437)$ General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position Governmental activities Taxes Property taxes 29,642,090$ 23,527,322$ 24,625,789$ 26,963,176$ Tax increment - 7,222,976 6,446,389 6,647,729 Franchise taxes 1,497,178 1,894,714 1,954,557 2,211,569 Lodging taxes - - - - Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 151,624 156,325 46,422 45,266 Unrestricted investment earnings 629,094 1,048,395 663,978 138,899 Gain on sale of capital assets 34,453 51,686 60,416 69,237 Miscellaneous 950,231 2,300,478 2,183,685 2,199,629 Transfers 3,358,921 2,457,867 1,660,035 1,761,927 Total governmental activities expenses 36,263,591 38,659,763 37,641,271 40,037,432 Business-type activities Unrestricted investment earnings 88,991 136,674 113,260 (3,348) Miscellaneous - - - - Transfers (3,358,921) (2,457,867) (1,660,035) (1,761,927) Total business-type activities expenses (3,269,930) (2,321,193) (1,546,775) (1,765,275) Total primary government 32,993,661$ 36,338,570$ 36,094,496$ 38,272,157$ Change in net position Governmental activities 2,200,559$ 4,860,439$ (1,301,297)$ (4,645,014)$ Business-type activities (729,407) 719,514 1,932,770 (1,827,266) Total primary government 1,471,152$ 5,579,953$ 631,473$ (6,472,280)$ Note: GASB 65 was implemented in 2013. Governmental and business-type activities expenses were restated for 2012 to reflect the expensing of bond issuance costs in the year of issuance. Expenses for years prior to 2012 were not restated. GASB 68 was implemented in 2015. Pension expense for years prior to 2015 was not restated. Fiscal Year 156 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 170 Table 2 Page 2 of 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (46,923,076)$ (45,237,385)$ (46,888,371)$ (46,842,332)$ (51,550,474)$ (63,969,532)$ 2,851,558 3,332,669 3,320,871 3,825,947 3,305,301 3,875,598 (44,071,518)$ (41,904,716)$ (43,567,500)$ (43,016,385)$ (48,245,173)$ (60,093,934)$ 27,398,157$ 28,209,567$ 30,185,703$ 31,582,993$ 33,449,668$ 34,566,143$ 7,380,995 6,763,951 7,733,689 8,961,792 10,266,075 11,027,616 2,268,213 2,915,732 3,079,399 3,763,394 3,804,678 1,074,002 - - - - 1,021,855 4,212,728 504,035 557,671 584,639 590,978 618,645 319,322 407,753 221,408 388,647 408,945 739,130 1,669,916 464,629 577,248 142,713 106,204 1,751,339 178,509 2,609,539 2,985,997 3,201,122 2,091,334 491,591 1,619,458 5,995,095 3,620,449 1,879,956 2,075,742 2,004,593 2,070,255 47,028,416 45,852,023 47,195,868 49,581,382 54,147,574 56,737,949 78,003 59,330 65,391 65,900 159,537 271,026 - - - - - - (5,995,095) (3,620,449) (1,879,956) (2,075,742) (2,004,593) (2,070,255) (5,917,092) (3,561,119) (1,814,565) (2,009,842) (1,845,056) (1,799,229) 41,111,324$ 42,290,904$ 45,381,303$ 47,571,540$ 52,302,518$ 54,938,720$ 105,340$ 614,638$ 307,497$ 2,739,050$ 2,597,100$ (7,231,583)$ (3,065,534) (228,450) 1,506,306 1,816,105 1,460,245 2,076,369 (2,960,194)$ 386,188$ 1,813,803$ 4,555,155$ 4,057,345$ (5,155,214)$ Fiscal Year 157 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 171 - This page intentionally left blank - 158 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 172 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 3 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Property Franchise Year Tax Tax Total 2010 29,316,753 1,497,178 30,813,931 2011 30,853,927 1,894,714 32,748,641 2012 31,220,365 1,954,557 33,174,922 2013 33,610,905 2,211,569 35,822,474 2014 34,779,152 2,268,213 37,047,365 2015 34,973,518 2,915,732 37,889,250 2016 37,919,392 3,079,399 40,998,791 2017 40,544,785 3,763,394 44,308,179 2018 43,715,743 3,804,678 47,520,421 2019 45,593,759 4,212,728 49,806,487 159 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 173 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (modified accrual basis of accounting) 2010 2011 2012 2013 General fund Nonspendable 80,664$ 71,192$ 70,450$ 256,251$ Restricted 425,967 427,718 458,448 498,922 Assigned 124,503 139,483 690,242 691,171 Unassigned 10,399,401 10,799,829 10,757,776 14,342,422 Total General fund 11,030,535$ 11,438,222$ 11,976,916$ 15,788,766$ All other governmental funds Nonspendable 250,008$ 306,058$ 426,736$ -$ Restricted 35,515,318 21,476,374 20,464,874 15,102,011 Committed 466,792 511,610 459,160 467,682 Assigned 33,253,313 34,425,344 35,947,479 33,481,454 Unassigned (7,872,234) (5,042,828) (7,567,117) (7,020,483) Total all other governmental funds 61,613,197$ 51,676,558$ 49,731,132$ 42,030,664$ Fiscal Year 160 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 174 Table 4 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 397,873$ 566,574$ 330,483$ 292,821$ 258,932$ 340,247$ 492,223 464,469 413,787 392,004 272,840 126,683 696,293 758,084 936,663 1,050,569 1,025,207 1,602,523 14,576,348 15,242,009 16,193,763 17,054,520 17,697,405 18,762,374 16,162,737$ 17,031,136$ 17,874,696$ 18,789,914$ 19,254,384$ 20,831,827$ -$ -$ 23,563$ 6,500$ 19,700$ 6,799$ 12,663,957 12,457,701 10,057,843 11,725,590 12,196,553 28,145,222 483,590 481,009 466,287 696,235 1,064,284 913,497 38,701,128 39,567,878 41,068,221 33,609,392 33,843,896 31,598,020 (8,819,377) (6,551,326) (5,187,339) (3,628,247) (7,382,436) (7,310,832) 43,029,298$ 45,955,262$ 46,428,575$ 42,409,470$ 39,741,997$ 53,352,706$ Fiscal Year 161 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 175 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (modified accrual basis of accounting) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Revenues Taxes 22,667,190$ 23,336,537$ 24,259,861$ 25,658,762$ Tax increments 6,649,563 7,222,976 6,446,389 6,647,729 Abatement of property taxes - - - - Lodging tax - - - - Franchise taxes 1,497,178 1,894,714 1,954,557 2,211,569 Licenses and permits 2,359,716 2,797,700 3,241,813 3,069,090 Intergovernmental 11,879,601 3,105,500 2,983,191 13,887,247 Charges for services 4,051,971 3,897,710 3,547,900 3,052,789 Fines and forfeits 401,610 281,047 341,356 311,882 Special assessments 1,550,110 985,912 2,233,715 1,505,568 Investment earnings 612,098 949,510 622,450 123,306 Miscellaneous 3,050,231 2,285,608 2,188,262 2,216,820 Total revenues 54,719,268 46,757,214 47,819,494 58,684,762 Expenditures General government 6,219,751 6,415,318 6,503,965 7,162,588 Public safety 11,771,246 11,885,577 12,571,356 12,435,341 Public works 15,624,494 4,437,939 - - Parks and recreation - - - - Operations and recreation - - 13,955,142 10,083,541 Operations - - - - Engineering - - 939,416 15,998,842 Public information 387,459 383,586 470,280 408,683 Culture and recreation 6,234,938 6,546,054 - - Housing and rehabilitation 4,144,378 790,918 3,881,500 1,715,540 Housing maintenance 241,170 79,786 116,949 141,250 Social and economic development 4,720,638 6,426,013 7,681,176 8,910,821 Miscellaneous - - - - Debt service Principal 2,170,000 5,420,000 1,285,000 3,275,000 Interest 1,170,286 1,170,549 1,235,118 1,298,016 Other charges 453,288 1,040 46,435 3,895 Bond issuance costs - - - - Capital outlay 6,306,083 14,295,009 3,930,528 2,089,798 Total expenditures 59,443,731 57,851,789 52,616,865 63,523,315 Revenues over (under) expenditures (4,724,463) (11,094,575) (4,797,371)(4,838,553) Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 11,809,353 7,086,529 6,395,355 10,472,534 Transfers out (14,974,391) (5,520,906) (5,580,044) (9,531,189) Refunding bonds issued 3,615,000 - 1,290,000 - Bonds issued 20,560,000 - - - Proceeds from long term debt - - - - Premium on bonds issued 2,792 - - - Redemption of refunded bonds (1,825,000) - - - Payments to refunded bond escrow agent (4,164,000) - - - Costs paid to refunded bond escrow agent - - - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets 27,412 - 885,328 8,590 Total other financing sources (uses) 15,051,166 1,565,623 2,990,639 949,935 Net change in fund balances 10,326,703$ (9,528,952)$ (1,806,732)$ (3,888,618)$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 6.29%15.26%5.18%7.44% Fiscal Year 162 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 176 Table 5 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 24,361,524$ 26,598,373$ 27,734,546$ 28,941,646$ 31,853,551$ 32,598,016$ 7,380,995 6,763,951 7,733,689 8,961,792 10,266,075 11,368,332 - - - - - (340,716) - - - - 1,021,855 4,212,728 2,268,213 2,915,732 3,079,399 3,763,394 3,804,678 1,074,002 3,413,683 4,312,702 4,320,078 3,985,517 4,001,645 5,264,659 13,216,055 6,017,025 4,345,482 8,228,158 5,240,175 5,383,495 3,476,264 3,608,933 3,406,964 3,529,125 3,708,327 3,847,458 369,546 263,951 299,808 293,236 282,146 274,339 1,268,539 1,238,873 1,192,628 1,169,859 1,150,577 1,183,508 386,263 199,747 362,196 369,203 677,131 1,616,635 2,577,300 3,051,946 3,230,390 2,218,712 1,529,337 1,701,458 58,718,382 54,971,233 55,705,180 61,460,642 63,535,497 68,183,914 7,376,380 7,813,046 8,188,193 8,142,675 9,075,636 9,372,448 13,239,729 14,025,463 14,669,251 15,824,577 17,050,302 17,651,051 - - - - - - - - - - - 6,571,735 10,450,789 9,710,604 9,688,872 10,665,329 11,031,544 - - - - - - 14,448,732 21,013,383 10,068,447 480,162 7,754,421 4,449,897 - 462,341 561,252 477,721 495,256 567,653 477,150 - - - - - - 875,225 538,411 482,313 453,940 512,029 796,010 130,534 84,505 144,204 57,370 12,040 60,315 7,928,905 8,872,479 8,673,638 10,857,645 10,479,359 15,396,270 - - - - - 26,282 1,970,000 1,612,827 1,681,876 3,650,297 2,055,000 2,990,000 1,138,100 1,210,971 1,446,371 1,493,780 1,462,325 1,468,620 54,433 2,640 2,717 - - - - - 111,922 40,419 33,060 309,945 2,271,988 3,486,864 19,894,828 10,159,659 14,388,878 16,857,464 66,911,807 57,987,509 65,942,068 69,595,368 71,117,723 86,426,022 (8,193,425)(3,016,276)(10,236,888)(8,134,726)(7,582,226)(18,242,108) 19,317,129 13,296,241 8,148,651 5,586,488 7,282,081 3,919,120 (15,241,005) (9,462,850) (6,994,545) (4,182,613) (5,608,462) (2,299,247) - - - - - - 5,070,000 - 10,000,000 3,430,000 2,020,000 32,005,001 - 2,200,000 - - - - 98,040 - 396,655 196,964 5,659 1,965,386 - - - - - - - - - - - (2,160,000) - - - - - - 321,866 777,248 3,000 - 1,679,945 - 9,566,030 6,810,639 11,553,761 5,030,839 5,379,223 33,430,260 1,372,605$ 3,794,363$ 1,316,873$ (3,103,887)$ (2,203,003)$ 15,188,152$ 4.81%5.18%6.02%8.61%5.6%6.0% Fiscal Year 163 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 177 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) ASSESSED VALUE/TAX CAPACITY VALUE AND ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 Population 45,250 44,665 45,505 46,362 Real Property Total assessed/tax capacity value 68,386,268$ 65,611,006$ 62,602,680$ 61,348,576$ Less tax increment districts - (6,976,791) (6,379,980) (5,426,995) (5,587,609) Area-wide allocation (net) (1,231,482) (2,775,483) (3,220,881) (2,940,678) Net assessed/tax capacity value 60,177,995$ 56,455,543$ 53,954,804$ 52,820,289$ Estimated market value 5,550,563,700$ 5,302,557,500$ 5,226,900,300$ 5,103,186,900$ Personal Property Assessed/tax capacity value 428,760$ 478,864$ 490,122$ 559,718$ Estimated market value 21,712,100$ 24,363,800$ 24,962,100$ 28,487,900$ Total Real and Personal Property Assessed/tax capacity value 60,606,755$ 56,934,407$ 54,444,926$ 53,380,007$ Estimated market value 5,572,275,800$ 5,326,921,300$ 5,251,862,400$ 5,131,674,800$ Tax Capacity Rate 37.1% 41.5% 43.9% 46.6% Fiscal Year 164 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 178 Table 6 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 47,411 47,502 48,354 48,747 49,039 50,021 62,068,742$ 65,599,841$ 71,118,692$ 77,324,247$ 81,272,437$ 88,023,090$ (6,130,653) (5,894,025) (6,798,025) (8,211,886) (8,746,231) (10,129,650) (3,670,487) (3,879,478) (3,168,815) (4,255,021) (4,787,086) (4,741,344) 52,267,602$ 55,826,338$ 61,151,852$ 64,857,340$ 67,739,120$ 73,152,096$ 5,123,316,900$ 5,435,136,500$ 5,841,548,800$ 6,306,324,900$ 6,637,473,500$ 7,167,361,600$ 576,427$ 607,025$ 614,793$ 650,504$ 710,227$ 747,358$ 29,320,000$ 30,852,400$ 31,212,200$ 33,056,300$ 36,048,400$ 37,926,900$ 52,844,029$ 56,433,363$ 61,766,645$ 65,507,844$ 68,469,347$ 73,899,454$ 5,152,636,900$ 5,465,988,900$ 5,872,761,000$ 6,339,381,200$ 6,673,521,900$ 7,205,288,500$ 48.6% 47.8% 46.2% 46.2% 46.4% 44.7% Fiscal Year 165 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 179 STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operating Rate 34.869 39.689 40.303 42.902 Debt Service Rate 2.247 1.770 3.563 3.650 Total City Direct Rates 37.116 41.459 43.866 46.552 County Operating Rate 42.640 45.840 48.231 49.461 School District Operating Rate 9.295 12.917 13.324 13.976 Debt Service Rate 11.803 13.539 15.946 15.754 Other Taxing Districts St. Louis Park HRA Levy 1.718 1.817 1.806 1.676 Metro Mosquito Control 0.461 0.525 0.537 0.556 Metro Council 0.793 0.885 0.940 0.997 Metro Transit Debt 1.366 1.539 1.607 1.689 Hennepin County HRA 0.241 0.397 0.403 0.478 Hennepin Parks 3.499 3.765 3.943 4.054 Park Museum 0.778 0.815 0.799 0.754 HC Regional Railroad Authority 1.000 1.246 1.294 1.561 Referendum Market Value Based Rate 0.152 0.148 - - Watershed 1.511 1.606 1.705 1.769 Total Overlapping Rates 75.257 85.039 90.535 92.725 Total Direct and Overlapping Rates 112.373 126.498 134.401 139.277 City of St. Louis Park Overlapping Rates CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX RATES - DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year 166 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 180 Table 7 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 45.868 45.234 43.744 42.933 41.759 40.090 2.702 2.520 2.451 3.267 4.624 4.616 48.570 47.754 46.195 46.200 46.383 44.706 49.959 46.398 45.356 44.087 42.808 41.861 16.741 15.642 14.887 12.364 14.506 13.578 15.617 14.698 13.627 13.247 14.529 13.444 1.808 1.679 1.634 1.661 1.718 1.667 0.563 0.507 0.483 0.475 0.456 0.427 1.069 0.976 0.925 0.883 0.844 0.659 1.703 1.523 1.491 1.463 1.383 1.456 0.514 0.471 0.439 0.497 0.457 0.535 4.169 3.789 3.601 3.365 3.161 2.961 0.766 0.702 0.712 0.711 0.710 0.705 1.777 1.817 1.879 1.925 1.962 1.807 - - - - - - 1.806 1.738 1.724 1.738 1.694 1.569 96.492 89.940 86.758 82.416 84.228 80.669 145.062 137.694 132.953 128.616 130.611 125.375 Fiscal Year 167 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 181 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 8 PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO Percentage Percentage of Total of Total Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed Value Rank Value Value Rank Value Interchange Investors 109,141,000$ 1 1.52 % BRI 1880 Towers At West End, LLC 107,772,000 2 1.50 BOF II West End Office Park MN, LLC 95,700,000 3 1.34 Excelsior & Grand Apartments, LLC 94,032,000 4 1.31 ARC WEMPSMN001, LLC 92,000,000 5 1.28 67,660,000$ 1 1.21 Gatewood Knoowood, LLC 84,861,100 6 1.18 Middleton Park Place Investors, LLC 66,872,000 7 0.93 PNMC Holdings 54,023,500 8 0.75 MFREVF III - Ellipse, LLC 53,898,000 9 0.75 Camerata LLC 50,600,000 10 0.71 23,725,600 7 0.43 Thompson Reuters Property Tax Service 59,146,000 2 1.06 AEW VIF II Acquisition LLC 40,000,000 3 0.72 Parkdale Property LLC 39,273,000 4 0.70 Park Nicollet 38,501,300 5 0.69 Park Glen 25,520,000 6 0.46 Target 17,959,000 8 0.32 General Growth/Knollwood Co.16,425,000 9 0.29 Xcel Energy 14,244,500 10 0.26 Total 808,899,600$ 11.29 % 342,454,400$ 6.15 % Total taxable assessed value 7,167,363,600$ 5,572,275,800$ Source: Hennepin County Assessor's Office Taxpayer 2019 2010 168 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 182 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 9 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year Total Tax Ended Levy for Percentage Percentage December 31 Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Amount of Levy 2010 22,841,195$ 22,465,478$ 98.36 22,841,195$ 100.00 2011 23,724,816 23,368,028 98.50 23,724,816 100.00 2012 24,746,325 24,435,571 98.74 24,690,024 99.77 2013 25,613,874 25,379,070 99.08 25,611,682 99.99 2014 26,527,267 26,129,048 98.50 26,515,779 99.96 2015 27,938,615 27,590,682 98.75 27,899,442 99.86 2016 29,615,682 29,462,804 99.48 29,438,804 99.40 2017 31,350,534 30,559,213 97.48 30,719,890 97.99 2018 32,921,154 32,737,859 99.44 32,737,859 99.44 2019 34,362,862 34,204,350 99.54 34,204,350 99.54 Collected Within the Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date 169 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 183 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 10 RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS General Net Unamortized Net Unamortized Total Percentage Fiscal Obligation Tax Increment Capital Notes Premiums/ Revenue Premiums/ Primary of Personal Per Year Bonds Bonds Leases Payable (Discounts) Bonds (Discounts) Government Income (1) Capita (1) 2010 26,335,000$ 7,410,000$ -$ -$ 14,148$ 11,334,924$ 27,699$ 45,121,771$ 2.72 997.17 2011 21,420,000 6,905,000 26,220 - (161,329) 10,555,000 25,299 38,770,190 2.31 868.02 2012 21,730,000 6,600,000 - - (164,209) 9,600,000 22,899 37,788,690 2.17 830.43 2013 20,185,000 4,870,000 - - (128,384) 12,785,000 35,022 37,746,638 2.06 814.17 2014 23,609,091 4,520,700 33,075 - (25,209) 16,826,503 126,503 45,090,663 2.39 951.06 2015 22,445,000 4,175,000 24,975 2,122,173 (28,920) 13,510,000 106,990 42,355,218 2.26 891.65 2016 31,230,000 3,805,000 215,619 2,025,297 348,099 10,515,000 91,538 48,230,553 2.46 997.45 2017 33,430,000 3,410,000 165,931 - 497,335 14,070,000 375,930 51,949,196 2.53 1,065.69 2018 33,810,000 2,995,000 180,382 - 445,293 19,475,000 677,443 57,583,118 2.67 1,174.23 2019 61,100,000 2,560,000 121,005 - 2,393,817 24,900,000 1,853,981 92,928,803 3.95 1,856.39 Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. (1) See the Schedule of Demographic Statistics on page 171 for personal income and population data. Governmental Activities Business Type Activities 170 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 184 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 11 RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Percentage of Less: Amounts Estimated General Restricted Net Unamortized Actual Taxable Fiscal Obligation for Debt Premiums/ Value of Per Year Bonds Service Funds (Discounts) Total Property (1) Capita (2) 2010 26,335,000$ (2,765,611)$ (114,863)$ 23,454,526$ 0.42 518.33 2011 21,420,000 (2,792,922) (111,310) 18,515,768 0.35 414.55 2012 21,730,000 (3,862,611) (123,684) 17,743,705 0.34 389.93 2013 20,185,000 (3,703,071) (119,339) 16,362,590 0.32 352.93 2014 23,625,000 (3,152,137) (16,954) 20,440,000 0.40 431.12 2015 22,445,000 (3,092,198) (20,758) 19,332,044 0.35 406.97 2016 31,230,000 (3,146,018) 355,124 28,439,106 0.48 588.14 2017 33,430,000 (3,325,205) 503,370 30,608,165 0.48 627.90 2018 33,810,000 (4,727,310) 450,186 29,532,876 0.44 602.13 2019 61,100,000 (13,942,465) 2,327,029 49,627,359 0.69 992.13 (1) See the Schedule of Assessed Value/Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value on page 164 for property value data. (2) Population data can be found in the Schedule of Demographic Statistics on page 177. 171 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 185 - This page intentionally left blank - 172 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 186 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 12 DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2019 Share of Debt Percentage Overlapping Outstanding (1) Applicable (2) Debt Overlapping Debt Hennepin County 983,232,996$ 3.82 % 37,559,500$ St. Louis Park Independent School District 137,122,694 99.34 136,217,684 Hopkins Independent School District 164,359,000 3.34 5,489,591 Edina Independent School District 167,312,880 0.06 100,388 Hennepin County Suburban Park District 39,123,902 5.39 2,108,778 Hennepin Regional RR Authority 91,599,372 3.82 3,499,096 Metropolitan Council 142,583,705 1.94 2,766,124 Subtotal of Overlapping Debt 1,725,334,549 187,741,161 Direct Debt City of St. Louis Park 66,104,280 100.00 66,104,280 Total of Direct and Overlapping Debt 1,791,438,829$ 253,845,441$ Source: Hennepin County, Minnesota Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the City of St. Louis Park. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City of St. Louis Park. This process recognizes that, when considering the City's ability to issue and repay long-term debt, the entire burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for repaying the debt of each overlapping government. (1) Net debt which excludes revenue and special assessment bonds. (2) The percentage applicable to the City of St. Louis Park was determined by dividing the portion of tax capacity within the City by the total tax capacity of the of the taxing jurisdiction. Governmental Unit 173 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 187 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 Debt Limit 167,168,274$ 159,807,639$ 157,555,872$ 153,950,244$ Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit 15,535,000 15,150,000 14,755,000 13,726,638 Legal Debt Margin 151,633,274$ 144,657,639$ 142,800,872$ 140,223,606$ Total Net Debt Applicable to the Limit as a percentage of Debt Limit 9.29%9.48%9.36%8.92% Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year Estimated Taxable Market Value 5,572,275,800$ 5,326,921,300$ 5,251,862,400$ 5,131,674,800$ Debt Limit (3% of taxable market value)167,168,274$ 159,807,639$ 157,555,872$ 153,950,244$ Debt applicable to limit Total Bonded Debt 45,079,924$ 38,880,000$ 37,930,000$ 37,746,638$ Less: G.O. Revenue Bonds (11,334,924) (10,555,000) (9,600,000) (12,785,000) G.O. Improvement Bonds (10,800,000) (6,270,000) (6,975,000) (6,365,000) G.O. Tax Increment Bonds (7,410,000) (6,905,000) (6,600,000) (4,870,000) Notes payable - - - - Total Net Debt Applicable to Limit:15,535,000 15,150,000 14,755,000 13,726,638 Legal Debt Margin:151,633,274$ 144,657,639$ 142,800,872$ 140,223,606$ Note: Under State of Minnesota law, the City of St. Louis Park's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 3 percent of the market value of the taxable property. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for the extinguishment of those obligations. Fiscal Year 174 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 188 Table 13 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 154,579,107$ 163,979,667$ 176,182,830$ 190,181,436$ 200,205,657$ 216,158,655$ 18,053,460 17,063,045 23,934,703 28,375,000 28,975,000 56,450,000 136,525,647$ 146,916,622$ 152,248,127$ 161,806,436$ 171,230,657$ 159,708,655$ 11.68% 10.41% 13.59% 14.92% 14.47% 26.12% 5,152,636,900$ 5,465,988,900$ 5,872,761,000$ 6,339,381,200$ 6,673,521,900$ 7,205,288,500$ 154,579,107$ 163,979,667$ 176,182,830$ 190,181,436$ 200,205,657$ 216,158,655$ 45,090,663$ 42,355,218$ 45,550,000$ 50,910,000$ 56,280,000$ 88,560,000$ (16,826,503) (13,510,000) (10,515,000) (14,070,000) (19,475,000) (24,900,000) (5,690,000) (5,485,000) (5,270,000) (5,055,000) (4,835,000) (4,650,000) (4,520,700) (4,175,000) (3,805,000) (3,410,000) (2,995,000) (2,560,000) - (2,122,173) (2,025,297) - - 18,053,460 17,063,045 23,934,703 28,375,000 28,975,000 56,450,000 136,525,647$ 146,916,622$ 152,248,127$ 161,806,436$ 171,230,657$ 159,708,655$ Fiscal Year 175 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 189 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 14 PLEDGED REVENUE BOND COVERAGE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Less: Net Fiscal Gross Operating Revenue Year Revenue 2 Expenses 3 Available Principal Interest Coverage 2010 5,981,074$ (3,851,018)$ 2,130,056$ 400,000$ 327,325$ 2.93 2011 12,186,180 (8,269,813) 3,916,367 525,000 363,435 4.41 2012 13,079,123 (8,387,329) 4,691,794 1,405,000 375,218 2.64 2013 12,659,936 (10,417,099) 2,242,837 985,000 324,393 1.71 2014 13,277,524 (10,514,981) 2,762,543 1,015,000 352,614 2.02 2015 14,379,975 (9,041,931) 5,338,044 1,045,000 4 381,359 3.74 2016 15,481,494 (10,328,560) 5,152,934 1,155,000 5 301,051 3.54 2017 16,495,157 (10,186,997) 6,308,160 1,360,000 6 197,658 4.05 2018 16,851,218 (11,354,272) 5,496,946 1,375,000 320,608 3.24 2019 17,827,318 (11,848,046) 5,979,272 2,095,000 320,608 2.63 Note: Details regarding the government's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 1 Includes Water Utility, Sewer Utility and Storm Water Utility revenue bonds. 2 Gross revenue includes investment income and excludes intergovermental and miscellaneous revenues. 3 Expenses exclude depreciation, interest on bonds and miscellaneous expenses. 4 Excludes $2,145,000 refunded principal paid through cash with fiscal agent. 5 Excludes $1,840,000 refunded principal paid through cash with fiscal agent. 6 Excludes $1,555,000 refunded principal paid through issuance of 2017A bonds. Debt Service Revenue Bonds1 176 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 190 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Personal Income (amounts expressed Per Capita Median School Unemployment Year Population (1) in thousands) Income (1) Age (1) Enrollment (2) Rate (3) 2010 45,250 1,660,539$ 36,697$ 35.5 4,347 3.9 2011 44,665 1,680,297 37,620 35.4 4,365 4.4 2012 45,505 1,744,525 38,337 35.4 4,472 4.6 2013 46,362 1,828,193 39,433 35.4 4,545 4.4 2014 47,411 1,884,398 39,746 35.4 4,590 2.6 2015 47,502 1,876,424 39,502 35.5 4,590 2.3 2016 48,354 1,962,641 40,589 35.2 4,627 2.9 2017 48,747 2,053,370 42,123 35.7 4,571 2.1 2018 49,039 2,157,275 43,991 35.7 4,560 2.2 2019 50,021 2,349,386 46,968 35.6 4,692 2.5 Source: (1) Federal Census Bureau data (2) St. Louis Park School District (3) Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Table 15 177 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 191 - This page intentionally left blank - 178 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 192 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 16 PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO Employees Rank Employees Rank Park Nicollet Health Services and Methodist Hospita 6,000 1 15.2 % 5,879 1 22.1 % Wells Fargo Mortgage 1,400 2 3.6 St. Louis Park Public Schools (I.S.D. No. 283)732 3 1.9 688 2 2.6 Japs-Olson Company 600 4 1.5 508 7 1.9 Sholom Home West 600 5 1.5 659 3 2.5 St. Louis Park, City of 472 6 288 10 1.1 Target 405 7 595 5 2.2 Center for Diagnostic Imaging 400 8 1.0 Nordic Ware 388 9 MoneyGram International 384 10 1.0 518 6 1.9 Knollwood Mall 600 4 2.3 Byerly's 350 8 1.3 Miracle Mile Shopping Center 350 9 1.3 Total 11,381 25.66 % 10,435 39.20 % Total City employment 39,428 26,602 Source: Official Statement from 2019 C Bonds Percentage Percentage 2019 2010 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year of Total City of Total City Employer Employment Employment 179 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 193 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 Function General government 105.5 95.4 90.3 88.8 Public safety Police Officers 51.0 51.0 52.0 52.0 Civilians 20.0 23.0 30.0 34.0 Fire Firefighters and officers 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Operations and recreation and Engineering 32.0 32.0 33.0 35.0 Water 9.9 11.2 11.2 10.9 Sewer 3.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Solid Waste 1.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 Storm Water 3.3 4.9 4.8 4.8 Total Employees 252.0 249.7 253.5 257.7 Source: St. Louis Park Human Resources Department Fiscal Year 180 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 194 Table 17 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 88.4 89.4 91.6 97.9 91.8 93.9 53.0 55.0 55.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 36.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 34.0 35.0 35.0 28.1 35.0 36.0 11.2 11.5 11.4 12.5 14.6 12.2 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.4 5.1 6.1 4.7 5.8 5.8 5.3 4.9 5.6 6.2 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.2 6.8 262.0 269.4 272.5 277.3 277.6 281.6 Fiscal Year 181 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 195 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 18 OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Police Medical calls 3,188 3,101 3,152 3,296 2,391 3,756 3,623 3,705 4,375 4,479 Traffic stops 4,236 5,362 7,146 6,674 6,907 6,692 6,939 7,401 6,267 3,956 Other 21,355 21,742 24,354 25,014 27,752 29,299 31,462 31,052 31,882 37,399 Fire Inspections/Medical/All other calls 3,893 3,078 3,117 3,360 4,747 5,118 6,130 5,513 6,308 5,712 Fire calls - residential/structural 107 153 142 66 116 135 53 202 297 95 Fire calls - other 37 53 64 48 91 115 41 85 68 50 Cable TV Hours of new programming 456 535 - 549.5 311 400 400 368 362 377 Inspections Permits 8,397 9,220 9,091 10,254 11,111 9,684 10,099 11,246 10,106 10,619 Inspections 20,204 22,818 23,667 26,902 32,543 23,031 23,372 28,484 25,187 21,419 Culture and recreation Aquatic park attendance 69,825 67,422 70,270 52,557 51,894 68,355 72,439 65,665 71,977 65,000 Hours of ice time 6,493 4,687 5,444 4,701 4,773 4,626 4,125 6,000 6,400 6,900 Water Gallons of water production (billions)2.1 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.09 2.01 1.78 1.79 1.91 1.83 Average watermain breaks per year 30 30 30 27 40 41 20 11 38 33 Public Works Snowplowing hours 3,216 2,543 1,173 6,449 3,752 2,284 3,781 2,859 5,466 4,334 Source: St. Louis Park Departments Fiscal Year 182 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 196 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)Table 19 CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Function Public safety Police Stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Patrol units 26 26 28 26 25 28 28 29 29 29 Fire Stations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vehicles 13 13 14 13 13 10 14 15 15 15 Fire hydrants 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,699 1,772 1,773 1,774 1,774 Culture and recreation Parks 53 57 57 57 57 52 53 53 53 53 Trails 10 10 10 10 10 10 22 22 22 22 Streets Lane miles of streets 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 311 Miles of streets 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 Water Wells 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 Water treatment plants 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Miles of watermain 149 160 160 160 160 160 175 175 175 175 Sanitary Sewer Lift stations 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Miles of sewermain 139 147 147 147 147 147 143 143 143 143 Storm Sewer Lift stations 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 Ponds and lakes 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 Catch basins 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,885 3,885 3,940 3,940 Source: St. Louis Park Departments Fiscal Year 183 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 197 - This page intentionally left blank - 184 Special study session meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 1) Title: CAFR for year ended Dec. 31, 2019 – auditors discussion and review Page 198 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 18, 2020 1.Call to order President Harris called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2.Roll call Commissioners present: President Harris, Tim Brausen, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano Commissioners absent: none Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), CIO (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Ms. Kramer), Economic Development Specialist (Ms. Grove), Housing Supervisor/Deputy Community Development Director (Ms. Schnitker), EDA Attorney (Ms. Ingram) Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Senor Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas) Guests: Kent Dahl, Ehlers 3.Approval of minutes - none 4.Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar - none 5.Reports - none 6.Old business - none 7.New business 7a. Redevelopment contract with Cedar Partners LLC – The Quentin EDA Resolution No. 20-09 Ms. Grove presented the staff report. Commissioner Brausen stated the PUD was already approved, noting it seems a reasonable request, adding 79 units of new housing to the community, 8 of which will be affordable. Commissioner Rog asked staff for clarification on pooling of TIF related to Elliot Park and the Elipse, and how it benefits the city’s tax rolls. Ms. Barton stated the city will use the Economic development authority meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: EDA meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 pooled TIF from these two projects as opposed to establishing a new TIF district, which allows for the full amount to go onto the tax rolls immediately. Commissioner Rog asked if there are concerns on the market demand now and if there will be any changes. Ms. Grove stated in staff’s conversations with the developer, no concerns were evident, and the developer is ready to proceed after getting the approval from council. Commissioner Harris asked if the amount of TIF pooled from the other two districts will supersede future development options in those areas, and if there will be enough TIF monies in that area if another project comes up later. Ms. Grove stated she is not aware of any issues with this. Mr. Dahl added the two redevelopment TIF districts are coming to the end of a 26-year term, so the city will want to utilize pooling dollars here before it is decertified. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mavity to adopt EDA Resolution No. 20-09, approving the redevelopment contract between EDA and Cedar Partners. The motion passed 7-0. 7b. Establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax Increment Financing District EDA Resolution No. 20-10, EDA Resolution No. 20-11 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Commissioner Rog stated she is supportive of the goals and had heard from a number of residents on pile driving in this area. She stated the noise has been difficult for many residents to bear in this area and asked if staff can notify her when it will be completed as she would like to notify residents. It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 20-10, approving the establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district), and to adopt EDA Resolution No. 20-11, authorizing an interfund loan for advance of certain costs in connection with the administration of the Parkway Residences TIF District. The motion passed 7-0. 7c. Redevelopment contract with Sela Group and affiliates – Parkway Residences EDA Resolution No. 20-12 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 20-12, approving the redevelopment contract between the EDA, Parkway Place, LLC and other affiliates of Sela Group, LLC. Economic development authority meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: EDA meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 The motion passed 7-0. 8. Communications – none 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Rachel Harris, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item: 5a Executive summary Title: Extensions to preliminary development and loan agreements - Sherman Associates Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive** •Motion to adopt EDA Resolution approving the second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the EDA, city, and Sherman Associates and approval of the first amendment to loan agreement relative to the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. Policy consideration: Does the EDA wish to extend the preliminary development agreement and loan agreement with Sherman Associates so as to continue joint efforts to prepare a mixed-use development plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site? Summary: On Feb. 5, 2018, the EDA and city council approved a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between the EDA, city and Sherman Associates in which the parties pledged to work cooperatively together toward a mutually acceptable mixed-use redevelopment plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. The agreement was subsequently extended on June 17, 2019. The EDA received a project status update at the Sept. 23, 2019 study session. Over the past two years, the parties have been working collaboratively on a joint development vision for the site which has required the parties to work through multiple and significant site development and infrastructure issues. Given that progress continues to be made on all these fronts, the parties are working toward a mutually acceptable redevelopment program and site plan. The PDA expires June 30, 2020 unless it is extended. Given the progress made to date and the parties’ ongoing mutual interest in the proposed redevelopment, the parties wish to extend the PDA to June 30, 2021 by which point the parties hope to reach a formal purchase and redevelopment contract. The proposed PDA extension requires approval by both the EDA and city council. In connection with the Beltline development, the EDA and Sherman Associates entered into a loan agreement under which the EDA loaned Sherman Associates $3.1 million to finance a portion of the cost to acquire a key parcel of the development (the former Vision Bank property). Sherman Associates have repaid over $2.1 million of the loan to date. Under the current loan agreement, the loan matures on June 30, 2020. The proposed first amendment to loan agreement extends the maturity date for the EDA’s loan to Sherman to June 30, 2021 to match the extended date of the Preliminary Development Agreement. Financial or budget considerations: The proposed first amendment to loan agreement allows the parties to address payment of the remaining loan balance (approximately $920,920) through the anticipated purchase and redevelopment contract. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; EDA resolution Amendment documents can be viewed by contacting Comm. Dev. staff Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager and EDA executive director Economic development authority meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 5a) Page 2 Title: Extensions to preliminary development and loan agreements - Sherman Associates Discussion Background: The Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) with Sherman Associates defines the parties’ respective responsibilities relative to preparing a redevelopment program and site plan consistent with the parties’ mutual objectives, provides Sherman Associates with formal permission to access the Beltline Blvd Station Site in order to continue conducting its due diligence, and provides Sherman with exclusive rights to negotiate acquisition of the subject properties with the EDA and the city. Additionally, the PDA formalizes the respective parties’ obligations under the SWLRT Funding Agreements with the Metropolitan Council and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant with the Federal Transit Administration for the structured public parking at the SWLRT Beltline Blvd Station. The PDA is essential tp provide Sherman with assurance of its ability to secure the subject properties once a mutually acceptable redevelopment plan for the site has been reached. Next steps: The parties are continuing their work on a mutually acceptable redevelopment program and site plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site and intend to complete that work within the next year. Anticipated discretionary approvals from the council/EDA for the Beltline project include: 1. EAW distribution, findings, and declaration 2. Formal financial assistance request 3. Utility and right-of-way vacations including vacation of the frontage road 4. Preliminary and final plat 5. Preliminary and final PUD 6. Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (including tax increment financing) Sherman plans to work through the first two items above this fall/winter and intends to apply for final planning and redevelopment contract approvals by spring next year. Economic development authority meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 5a) Page 3 Title: Extensions to preliminary development and loan agreements - Sherman Associates EDA Resolution No. 20 -____ Resolution approving a second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Beltline Development LLC, and a first amendment to the loan agreement between the Authority and Beltline Development LLC Whereas, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, as amended, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) administers its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), the Authority, and Beltline Development LLC (the “Developer”) each own portions of certain property (the “Property”) within the Project, which Property has been the subject of certain preliminary negotiations between the parties for purposes of constructing a mixed-use (multi-family residential and commercial) development on the Property and related parking, including a parking ramp serving in part as a park and ride facility for Metro Transit’s proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit Beltline station (the “Development”); and Whereas, the City, the Authority, and the Developer executed a Preliminary Development Agreement, dated as of February 5, 2018 (the “Agreement”), providing for the performance of certain activities on the part of the parties in preparation for the negotiation of a definitive Purchase and Redevelopment Contract in connection with the Property, and executed a First Amendment to the Agreement dated as of June 17, 2019, extending the dates of performance of each party’s activities under the Agreement; and Whereas, pursuant to the Agreement, the Developer acquired its portion of the Property (the “Vision Bank Parcel”) from a third party, and the Authority financed a portion of the acquisition cost of the Vision Bank Parcel pursuant to a Loan Agreement between the Authority and Developer dated as of April 1, 2019 (the “Loan Agreement”), pursuant to which the Authority loaned $3,100,000 to the Developer to finance such acquisition as evidenced by a promissory note (the “Note”) and secured by a mortgage on the Vision Bank Parcel (the “Mortgage”). Whereas, the parties have negotiated and now propose to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement and a First Amendment to the Loan Agreement to further extend the deadline for the completion of necessary preliminary activities for a period of up to twelve months. Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority that the Second Amendment to the Agreement and the First Amendment to the Loan Agreement as presented to the Board of Commissioners are hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Second Amendment to the Agreement and First Amendment to the Loan Agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. Economic development authority meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 5a) Page 4 Title: Extensions to preliminary development and loan agreements - Sherman Associates It is further resolved that the President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Second Amendment to the Agreement, the First Amendment to the Loan Agreement, and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, including without limitation amendments to the Mortgage and Note, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations thereunder. It is further resolved that Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Rachel Harris, president Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Presentation: 2a Executive Summary Title: Comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the year ended December 31, 2019 Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive** •No action required. David J. Mol, partner from Redpath and Company, will make a presentation on the opinion issued and other required forms of communication to the city council. Policy consideration: What additional information may the council want relative to the 2019 CAFR? Summary: The city is required to have an independent audit each year in which the audit firm issues an opinion on the financial statements. The city received a “clean” audit opinion, or unmodified opinion, which means that Redpath and Company believe the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City as of December 31, 2019. After the city council reviews the CAFR for 2019, it will be submitted to the office of the state auditor as required and also submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to be considered for the Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting certificate program for which the City of St. Louis Park has been recognized for 36 consecutive years. Financial or budget considerations: This report shows the City of St. Louis Park continues to remain in strong financial condition. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Communication with those charged with governance* Auditor’s report on internal control* Minnesota legal compliance report* Comprehensive annual financial report * (*See special study session report for attachments.) Prepared by: Darla Monson, accountant Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes Local Board of Appeal & Equalization St. Louis Park, Minnesota April 27, 2020 1.Reconvene the St. Louis Park local board of appeal and equalization The St. Louis Park local board of appeal and equalization was reconvened at 6:30 p.m. 2.Roll call – Declaration of Quorum Board Members present: Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano. Board Members absent: None Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Commercial Appraiser (Ms. Nathanson), Appraiser I (Mr. Jurek), Appraiser II (Ms. Clarke), Assessing Technician (Ms. Carr), Hennepin County Administrator (Ms. Hebert), Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). 3.Acknowledgement of trained members (Kraft and Rog) The board acknowledged board members Kraft and Rog as their trained members. 4.Acknowledgement of assessing staff members in attendance The board acknowledged City Assessor Cory Bultema, Commercial Appraiser Bridget Nathanson, and Hennepin County representative Janene Hebert. 5.Board action – review of properties in appeal It was moved by Board Member Rog and seconded by Board Member Kraft to approve the properties in appeal, as noted below. Susan & Bruce Cantor 4240 Toledo Ave. S. 07-028-24-38-0177 The motion passed 7-0. 6.Board Action - Review of properties sustained It was moved by Board Member Rog and seconded by Board Member Kraft to approve the properties sustained, as noted below. Karin Larson 320 Ford Rd. #8 01-117-22-11-0035 MMP (by representative) 5901 Wayzata Blvd. 04-117-21-32-0088 36 Park, LLC 3601 Park Center Blvd. 06-028-24-33-0019 Brenda Rosenhamer 4262 Wooddale Ave. 07-028-24-31-0125 Edward Roche 7414 22nd St. W. #103 08-117-21-21-0003 HSSLP, LLC (by 5305 Wayzata Blvd. 30-029-24-32-0025 RISLP, LLC (by 5075 Wayzata Blvd. 30-029-24-32-0029 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: LBAE meeting minutes of April 27, 2020 The motion passed 7-0. 7. Board action – where petitioner & assessing staff are in mutual agreement It was moved by Board Member Rog and seconded by Board Member Kraft to approve the assessments listed in the updated roster sheet for the meeting. The properties in agreement below, were read into the record: MMP (by representative) 1400 Zarthan Ave. S. 04-117-21-32-0089 Richard Harrison 1550 Zarthan Ave. S. #506 04-117-21-32-0174 Paul Bischel 3700 Glenhurst Ave. 06-028-24-44-0009 William Kordaris 3727 Inglewood Ave. S. 06-028-24-44-0110 Thomas Snook 3725 Huntington Ave. S. 06-028-24-44-0170 Brent LaMar 2061 Utah Ave. S. 07-117-21-11-0018 Matthew Delisle 4272 Wooddale Ave. 07-028-24-31-0128 James Malisow 2819 Aquila Ave. S. 07-117-21-43-0038 Richard Cohen 2222 Oregon Ct. 08-117-21-21-0350 Lauren Sticha 2901 Georgia Ave. S. 08-117-21-44-0215 David Krocak 3246 Sumter Ave. S. 17-117-21-23-0015 Christine Iverson 3508 Quebec Ave. S. 17-117-21-32-0090 Dennis Dummer 2940 Flag Ave. S. 18-117-21-22-0008 Dana Nemer 8918 Minnehaha Cir. N. 18-117-21-31-0007 Abraham Jungbauer 7806 Cambridge St. 20-117-21-22-0112 Gabriel Torrison 4036 Webster Ave. S. 21-117-21-24-0125 Jesse Forsell 2320 Parklands Rd. 31-029-24-12-0051 Jason Tanker 2607 Inglewood Ave. S. 31-029-24-41-0104 The motion passed 7-0. 8. Instruct assessor to complete record of changes for submittal 9. Instruct assessor to inform petitioners of board action via mail Petitioners will be informed via mail. 10. Complete the local board of appeal and equalization certification form 11. Adjourn if board business is completed The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Jake Spano, local board of appeal and equalization chair Cory Bultema, city assessor Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota May 18, 2020 1. Call to order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Anne Mavity, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), CIO (Mr. Pires), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Ms. Kramer), Economic Development Specialist (Ms. Grove), Housing Supervisor/Deputy Community Development Director (Ms. Schnitker), EDA Attorney (Ms. Ingram) Assistant Housing Supervisor (Ms. Olson), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Kent Dahl, Ehlers; St. Louis Park residents 2. Presentations - none 3. Approval of minutes 3a. LBAE meeting minutes of April 20, 2020 It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the April 20, 2020 LBAE meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. City council meeting minutes of April 20, 2020 It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the April 20, 2020 city council meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 4a. Designate Thomas and Sons Construction the lowest responsible bidder and authorize a contract with the firm in the amount of $586,676.30 for Monterey Drive improvements (Phase 1) – project 4020-1101. It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and commissions - none 6. Public hearings 6a. Establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax Increment Financing District Resolution No. 20-082 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 20-082 approving the establishment of the Parkway Residences Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district). The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Public hearing and first reading of an ordinance establishing South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association HIA Ms. Olson presented the staff report. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Harris noted she had inquired about risk on the project at the May 4, 2020 meeting. She asked Ms. Olson to elaborate on the purpose of the HIA program and how it benefits the city’s housing goals. Ms. Olson stated the policy was adopted in 2001 and requires the units be affordable housing. She stated in this case, the units are all at 80% and 60% AMI, and the purpose of the policy is to assist housing associations that need to do improvements, in order to preserve affordable housing. Councilmember Rog asked if it is fairer and more reasonable to charge accordingly for windows, and if the number of windows is tied to unit size. Ms. Olson stated yes, the 2- and 3-bedroom units on the ends have more windows. She noted some owners had City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 already replaced some of their windows, and since that time, if owners had paid to replace their windows, they will not have to pay for them at this time. Councilmember Rog asked if residents are supportive of this program. Ms. Olson answered yes, they are, adding they are only paying for their own units’ windows. Councilmember Brausen stated this method is available by the city to assist townhomes and condos that don’t have other resources available, while allowing the city to continue to offer affordable housing stock. He noted 28 of the 32-unit residents approved of the improvements, and it is of very low risk to the city adding he will support this motion. Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Brausen, stating this model and the way the city uses this is seen as a very effective way to provide quality and standards and to help support affordable home ownership as well. Councilmember Kraft stated cash flow issues due to the pandemic do not seem to be an issue; however, he asked why there were not sufficient reserves set up over the years by past management. He noted he was satisfied with staff’s explanation adding current management seems to be doing the right things and he encouraged them to build up their long-term reserves now. He stated he will support this as it supports affordable home ownership, which can be great starter homes. He added it is of little financial risk to the city and is a great thing to do. Mayor Spano agreed it is low risk, with high rewards. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to approve first reading of an ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota statues 428A.11 to 428A.21 and to set second reading date for June 1, 2020. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Consider complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. City Attorney Mattick stated the council is asked to review the information provided in the staff report, hear the basis for the complaint from the complainants, and allow Councilmember Mavity to respond to the complaint. Unless the council determines that more information is needed, council is asked to deliberate and vote on the issue of whether or not a violation of St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter Section 2.09 has City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 occurred. If the council determines that a violation has occurred, the council must follow the requirements of Section 2.09 related to public censure and imposition of any additional penalty. City Attorney Mattick explained that because Councilmember Mavity has declared a conflict of interest, his opinion is that no further action is required of council regarding the alleged violation related to that matter. He stated the focus tonight will be to address charter section 2.09 and allegations of interference with administration by Councilmember Mavity. Colette Rentz, 3640 Wooddale Ave., read the neighborhood group’s letter to the council, into the record. We were notified three (3) business days prior that this would be a City Council Agenda item today. Furthermore, we were provided access to 58 pages of material under this item one (1) business day ago. Moreover, it is undetermined if we would be allowed one or three people to be in attendance and no process is defined. This simply is unreasonable, unjust, and unfair to put the burden on the victims in this fashion. As you are aware the UCC Communications Committee was formed from families (approx. 90) that will be directly affected and impacted by the development. Subsequently a complaint was submitted some time ago. We are not an investigatory body, and nor should that be the role of such committee. We are not in a positon to call multiple witnesses, interview appropriate folks, review emails … yet it does feel like that is being pushed in our direction. It is only proper, and we are much surprised, that a third-party investigation has not yet been commenced. This certainly would show this was taken seriously and any decision was based on the findings of a fact through an independent investigation. Furthermore, as you are aware, we have requested fair, independent, and impartial representation from an elected official now that Council Member Mavity has recused herself. This has yet to happen or be addressed. Thus, for reasons previously referenced and per advice, you have left us not much choice, at this time to limit participation to respectfully to submitting this document and request that it be read into the record. We do understand that you will be taking individual public input as the agenda item was reviewed. 1. The Complainants are interested property owners who have reason to believe that Councilmember Mavity has used her position on the City Council improperly in order to advance her personal interests, that of PPL, the UCC and this Project. The basis of these beliefs has been set forth previously to the Council via submission to the City Manager on March 12, 2020. 2. This City Council is empowered under the Home Rule Charter, §208, to make investigations into “…the city’s affairs including, but not limited to, neglect, dereliction of duty, or waste on the part of any officer….” Id. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 3. The St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter (“Charter”) expressly empowers City Manager Tom Harmening to investigate alleged abuses and conflict of issues involving City Councilmembers. Section 5.02(a) of the Charter requires the City Manager to perform such investigations “…to enforce this Charter and the laws, ordinances and resolutions of the City.” Id. 4. The City Manager is further tasked to recommend such “[m]easures as necessary for the welfare of the people and the efficient administration of the public’s affairs….” Id., §5.02(f). 5. The Charter further sets forth a clear code of ethics to be followed by St. Louis Park’s elected councilmembers and officials. Section 12.01 of the Charter delineates “[t]hose acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the city and by directing disclosure by such officials of private financial or other interests, in matters affecting the city….” Id., §12.01 6. Elected councilmembers such as Councilmember Mavity are prohibited from using their position with the government of St. Louis Park for personal gain. Section 12.18 of the Charter prohibits “[a]ny public official who is authorized to take part in any manner in making a sale, lease or contract in his/her official capacity” from “[personally] benefiting financially….” Id. Any such contract entered into by the City of St. Louis Park is deemed void by the Charter. Id., §12.18(a). 7. The duty of councilmembers to avoid conflicts of interest is broadly defined beyond financial conflicts of interest. Section 12.18(b) of the Charter expressly prohibits any official “…authorized to take an action, vote, or make a decision concerning a non- contractual transaction of the city and which would affect the public official’s shareholders’ interests,…[and]shall disqualify himself/herself from such action, vote or decision.” Id. Any transaction the City enters into involving a public official who acts in violation of this prohibition “is voidable” by the council. Id. 8. Finally, the Charter defines prohibited conflicts of interest in the context of gifts. The Charter prohibits councilmembers from receiving—either directly or indirectly—and “in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the city…” items including money, services, loans, promises or favors as a result of their position as a public official. See §12.20. The Charter defines “gifts” and “things of value” very broadly, indicating that this includes anything that would “[t]end to influence his/her in the discharge of his/her duties….” Id. 9. The Complainant property owners and interested stakeholders have now been advised that Councilmember Mavity has “disqualified” herself from further discussions and decision-making with respect to the Project. It is noteworthy that this came only after the complaint was brought to her attention. 10. While the Complainants are satisfied that an initial step to resolution of their Complaint has taken place, the base issue—a councilmember’s self-disqualification in light of her apparent use of her position as a city council member for St. Louis Park to City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 further the interests of herself and/or the developer who aligns with the councilmember personal desires and perhaps financially. This issue is not resolved. 11. The Complainants are not agreeable, nor do they concede, that Councilmember Mavity’s “self-disqualification” constitutes in any way a resolution of the allegations contained in Complainant’s Complaint, particularly, Complainant’s request for a thorough and full investigation of Councilmember Mavity’s alleged violations of Charter §§12.01, 12.18, 12.19 and 12.20. . See “Official Conflict of Interest,” p. 23 (St. Paul; League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo, August 23, 2019), as cited below: “Disclose the interest as early as possible, orally in writing, not attempt to influence others, and not participate in any discussions”. An independent third-party investigation would be appropriate and reasonable as council member was at multiple meetings and participated in many discussions, orally and in writing, in regard to this issue prior to and after the complaint was submitted. 12. The Complainants further seek full disclosures of Councilmember Mavity’s basis for self-disqualification. Councilmember Mavity is required under the Charter and under Minnesota statutes to fully disclose her conflict of interest to the public. Section 12.12 requires St. Louis Park councilmembers to disclose to the public their employers, all sources of compensation in excess of $1,000/year, and further requires the filing of a list of all “business corporations, companies, firms or business enterprises, or partnerships with which the individual is connected as an employee, officer, owner, director, trustee, partner, advisor or consultant.” Id., §12.12(1), (2) and (3). Councilmembers are required to update their disclosures annually on April 15. §12.15(1). Complainants request that all such disclosures of Councilmember Mavity be disclosed to the public, including but not limited to the conflict of interest disclosure she provided to the City Manager, City Attorney, and/or the City Council together with her voluntary self-disqualification on all future dealings with the Project. See also Minn. Stat. §10A.07, subd. Noteworthy, and not contained within the March 12, 2020 complaint, among other compelling information and facts, is Councilmember Mavity has an ongoing relationship with PPL, and on March 15, 2020, she was a signatory to a letter to the Governor urging state housing support for low income residents of the state. Councilmember Mavity signed this letter in her capacity as “Executive Director” of “Minnesota Housing Partnership.” Another signatory to the letter was Paul Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of PPL. 13. The Complainants further object to Councilmember Mavity’s appearance at the hearing on Monday, March 18 ostensibly to “respond” to the Complainant’s Complaint. While the Complainants agree that the councilmember is entitled to offer evidence and rebuttal to the allegations, she is not entitled to be present during the deliberations by the Council. The City Council’s proposed adjudication of Councilmember Mavity’s conflict of interest issue under §2.09 of the Charter is a quasi-judicial decision. As such, Councilmember Mavity’s presence at the hearing violates the spirit and intent of the Charter—to ensure an unbiased decision by the City Council members on a fellow City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 member’s acts or conflicts. See “Official Conflict of Interest,” pp. 17-18 (St. Paul; League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo, August 23, 2019), as cited below: “The purpose behind the creation of a rule which would disqualify public officials from participating in proceedings in a decision-making capacity when they have a direct interest in its outcome is to ensure that their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of their own selfish interests. There is no settled general rule as to whether such an interest will disqualify an official.[25] Each case must be decided on the basis of the particular facts present. Among the relevant factors that should be considered in making this determination are: (1) The nature of the decision being made; (2) the nature of the pecuniary interest; (3) the number of officials making the decision who are interested; (4) the need, if any, to have interested persons make the decision; and (5) the other means available, if any, such as the opportunity for review, that serve to insure that the officials will not act arbitrarily to further their selfish interests.” Id. (emphasis added). 14. Upon a thorough third-party investigation it is likely you may find much compelling information not only in regard to the conflict of interest but in regard to 2.09. With only limited review of information provided one business day ago, it appears Council Member Ann Mavity, directly or indirectly, in just one such example guided city planning by letting them know the explicit dates that the project was trying to hit in order to achieve the key milestone dates for the June 1st financial submission. Ann Mavity made it clear in an email on March 6th to Jacquelyn Kramer “the timing is also a bit sensitive because if the city does choose to deploy some vouchers to the project, the project application might be more competitive if that decision is made before the June 4th state application deadline. All this assumes a positive city council approval of some version of the project by June which of course is still unresolved”. In this email exchange, Ann made it very clear the timeline PPL was working under. She also continued to question the dates for housing authority and city planning. This line of question – further illustrates and is just one example of her ongoing intent to drive interference/timing of administrative and the independent processes required under the Charter. These actions and conduct do not support nonbiased and independent representation as called for under the Charter and the spirit of an upcoming recusal. 15. In summary, the basis of the Complainant’s original complaint to the City has been documented. Complainants therefore seek: A. Full disclosure of any and all findings of the City Attorney and the City Manager following their receipt of the Complaint; including but not limited to supporting subsequent information communicated to the City Manager and City Attorney during an April phone conference with complainants, and all information and discussions in regards to setting up the May 18, 2020 meeting. B. Full disclosure of the basis of Councilmember Mavity’s self-disqualification, including all writings, communications, telephone transcripts, and any other evidence related to the Councilmember’s self-disqualification; and City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 8 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 C. Full disclosure of findings of Council Member Mavity’s actions prior and after self- disqualification in regard to this project. D. Any findings of fact and conclusions entered upon the public record from the City Council following its conclusion of the proposed Article 2.09 hearing set to be conducted on May 18, 2020. E. A thorough and full third-party investigation of Councilmember Mavity’s alleged violations of Charter §§2.09, 12.01, 12.18, 12.19 and 12.20. Since this item was fast-tracked on the agenda with little to no notice, in addition to previous concerns disclosed in the complaint to both the City Attorney and City Manager (prior to this meeting being scheduled), it is only reasonable and transparent that this submission be read in into the record in its entirety at the Council Meeting this evening by the City Clerk, or another appropriate party you may designate. Everyone is aware this is unprecedented times for public input and communication is not normal and substandard, and detrimental to many aggrieved parties in this case. As you know Elmwood is a very diverse neighborhood - racially, socio-economic, generationally, and more. Many do not have the tools, skills or access to these new ways to participate in revised public discourse. Their voice is no less important or valuable than that of the wealth and young. Reading for those viewing is helpful and appropriate. We hope you will concur that this is a very reasonable request based on the overall circumstances. It is estimated it will take only around 10 minutes or less to be read an introduced into the record. If this seems unacceptable, please advise with the justification of not accommodating. The Complainants present this position and request to the City Council in their capacity as citizens of the City of St. Louis Park whom have direct property rights and interests at stake in the Elmwood UCC Project. Comments Nancy Robridge, 5800 Cambridge St., stated she is concerned, and thinks the city council must be held to the highest standards. Tom Larson, 3751 Brunswick Ave. S., stated he attended the initial study session on the PPL project and was surprised it would move forward before any public input. He added that the two meetings were very contentious and stated that having been involved in other projects in the past with lots of public engagement, the PPL project seemed rushed. He noted this is disturbing and asked the council to please listen to all sides. Barb Patterson, 4326 Wooddale Ave., stated she is a member of the city community housing team, but is not speaking for that group this evening. She stated she has an ongoing interest in affordable housing in St Louis Park and also knows others who have written their support for Councilmember Mavity. She stated she is supportive also of Councilmember Mavity who is her council representative and she is outraged people are attacking Councilmember Mavity and saying she is not just. Ms. Patterson stated the city needs affordable housing, adding this project has been filled with neighborhood City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 9 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 pushback, animosity, and vitriol. She stated Councilmember Mavity is a local expert on affordable housing and the city is fortunate to have her on council and supporting us in the neighborhood. Andrew Sockerson, 15 Oxford St., stated it makes sense to do a third-party investigation and it is interesting there was a recusal by Councilmember Mavity after the fact. Councilmember Brausen stated he wants to hear facts not just allegations. He stated the complaint was read into the record and the staff reported on what happened and what occurred, but he did not hear any facts from the neighbors, only allegations. He stated it is easy to make accusations, but the council will need to make decisions based on the facts. Councilmember Mohamed asked if the neighborhood was notified that they could give public comment this evening. Mr. Harmening stated staff offered the neighborhood group that wrote complaint and email to present their point of view and then also allow Councilmember Mavity to comment as well. He added staff has been in conversation with the neighborhood for a while now, by email and phone calls, adding that he had advised a member of the community last Tuesday that this item would be discussed tonight and staff sent an invitation to the entire committee last Wednesday. Mayor Spano asked for further public comment at this time. John Gleason, 5801 Goodrich Ave., stated he is not a party to this charter complaint, but has been involved in multiple developments in the city over the last 20 years. He noted the behavior on this project is different, specifically with the developer and landowner, Chris Olson, who stated at the neighborhood meeting that community involvement in this project is specifically lower than other projects. Mr. Gleason added he asked why the church did not follow protocol on this project with more involvement and stated Mr. Olson said they were advised in 2018 that there was support on the council for affordable housing, so there was no need to involve the neighborhood. Comments by Councilmember Mavity Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the opportunity to respond to this issue and noted the city attorney stated the conflict of interest had been addressed, and documents in the staff report show that she did not interfere with staff, adding that there is enough evidence for the council to make a decision and end this process tonight. Councilmember Mavity submitted the following written statement as her complete comments. In response to item 8(a) on the May 18th, 2020 St. Louis Park City council agenda, regarding the “Complaint of alleged violations of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter”, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 10 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 I appreciate the opportunity to respond as you are considering action on this item. The Complaint alleges two areas of violations of the City Charter: 1) conflict of interest and 2) interference in administration. I believe that the summary memo from City Manager Harmening clearly indicates that the first allegation is resolved and requires no action by the council. On the second item, I would assert that the record and documents in the staff report, with absolute clarity, and from staff themselves and documented in the record, indicate that no “Interference with Administration” occurred. On that basis, I believe the council is empowered and required to conclude that no violation occurred and that the complaint is summarily dismissed. It is in the best interest of the city to resolve this complaint as quickly as possible, and I believe there is sufficient information available from the city attorney’s investigation to do that this evening. Requests for further delays I believe are being raised to distract and delay, and I believe the council has sufficient information to resolve this tonight. I’m going to address three items this evening: 1) briefly, even though it is resolved, for the record, the conflict of interest allegation that our city attorney has advised is now resolved; 2) the false accusation of interference with administration; and 3) defamation of character. My work in the non-profit sector advancing affordable housing is well known. This work does not specifically benefit from any one project advancing or not, in fact, my work is focused on state and federal level housing policies and investments, as well as creating policy frameworks and tools for local communities. And since many speakers have referenced the timing of this project, and my mention of it, it’s because it’s the same timeline as every affordable project applying for funding to the states. Right now, there are at least 100 projects across MN applying to the State for funding in their once annual funding solicitation, representing 6,600 possible new units of housing. They are all on the exact same timeline, and I am working hard to secure $200 million from the legislature to allow the state to fund as many of these as possible. In advancing affordable housing in this way, I work in partnership with hundreds of stakeholders across the state who share this value and goal. In the past, I have traditionally disclosed any potential or appearances of conflicts at the earliest opportunity and once an actual project has applied for city approvals, have been faithful to recusing myself as each one comes before council as needed. All of you have witnessed me do this repeatedly. Therefore, at the study session in January 2020, I disclosed a relationship with PPL, as part of my work in advancing affordable housing. To be clear, there was no active development application at the city – it wasn’t officially a city project at that point. Typically, I then officially recuse myself when an action is being brought to the council on a project and had every intention to do so if and when an action was brought to council. Since this had not occurred yet, I had not yet “officially” recused myself. In light of the complaint, I have recused myself in order to clarify this now, for the purposes of this Complaint. As noted by the City Manager’s report, this issue in the complaint is resolved and no further action by the City council is needed or recommended by the City Attorney. Regarding the false accusation of Interference in administration, this is essentially the question of whether I directed staff… which I did not. I have freely provided insights into City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 11 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 the community, city policies, past developments, to anyone who asks – including in this instance to Elmwood residents and the UCC development team - but also refer them to staff for technical guidance and application details, and to neighbors for review and early input for further steps. A thorough review and investigation has been conducted. And staff themselves, by their statements attesting to their interactions with me, and by record of email communications, were never directed by me to proceed on this project in any way different than they have done on any project proposal that would come to their attention. As you reviewed in the emails attached in the council packet, it’s also important to note, in contrast to what is being alleged, that in my responses to neighbors that the complainants have submitted, I have consistently referenced “city council action” – never have I asserted in communication or in writing or otherwise, that I could or would have a decision making role in steering such a project. Again, in sum, the record clearly demonstrates that no interference occurred, and I respectfully request the Council to reject this false and outrageous accusation and reject the Complaint in total. More troublesome to me and I think perhaps should be to you as well, are the false accusations of what is alleged as “nefarious” (legally, meaning criminal) wrong-doing – accusations that defame my character. As public officials, our actions must be held to the highest ethical standards, and I am confident that my actions have done so. Whether or not the signatories to the Complaint understood the legal definition of “nefarious”, as a matter of public record, and for any future legal actions that may ensue, it’s imperative that you do consider the gravity and implications of that false accusation and its legal definition – that it is accusing criminal activity. I ask that you consider that if residents who disagree with city policy, with a duly-elected official’s public positions and vision for the city, falsely accuse that official of criminal conduct, it sets a precedent that could undermine public confidence in how the city does its business. And to be clear, as I’ve outlined, I categorically assert that my actions have been in support of and in alignment with our City Charter. I want to be clear - I absolutely believe that each of the signatories on this Complaint love their community and that they want the best for their neighborhood and for SLP. I also understand that it can be frustrating for residents when they feel that the city’s goals and direction – and their own city councilmember - do not reflect their own vision or wishes. They have asked for “representation” with an implicit assumption that if their proposal is not advanced, that they are not “represented”. All of you on this council understand well, that this is the complexity of representing a large and diverse city. Whether I have responded or engaged neighbors in the same way each of you do or would have, is not germane to today’s considerations. Each of us responds as best we can and as we see fit. That is an entirely different issue than the false accusation of “nefarious” actions, including steering staff work on this project, which I categorically did not do, and which staff documentation and statements also do not support. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 12 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 I have been very clear about my vision and values that I am advancing as a city councilmember. In fact, I’m proud of my life-long professional work in advancing affordable housing, in advancing race equity goals to ensure everyone’s voice is included in policy decisions, in advancing sustainability including more walkable communities, advocating for SWLRT and leveraging that investment through denser development around station areas. And these are our shared and official goals and vision for our city. Implementing each of these goals, necessarily disrupts “business as usual”, and brings change to neighborhoods like Elmwood. And while residents of course can disagree with these goals, for the complainants to take this approach, i.e., to accuse me of violations of city charter, it’s outrageous and beyond the pale for how such disagreements should be resolved. Many of the complainants have previously publicly and actively opposed approved city policies and developments, e.g., they’ve opposed ones that advance more density – like Elmwood Sr building, and opposed more sidewalks and walkability – like we completed two years ago in Elmwood neighborhood, they’ve opposed greater affordability in housing developments – as reflected in the PLACE project. They have every right to oppose those policies and projects, of course, but their lack of success has driven them to this attempt to sideline me on issues of city policy, is part of an ongoing effort to oppose those policies and is entirely inappropriate and outrageous. The complaints against me are based on policy disagreements that should be resolved through elections, not through such a complaint. As a SLP Councilmember, I represent many, many diverse interests, perspectives, and people. After three terms and more than a decade on this council, and having won re- election twice (including winning a majority from Elmwood precincts in the all my elections, including the most recent election in the midst of the brouhaha about sidewalks), I also understand that the loudest and most insistent voices aren’t the only ones I need to consider or that I need to represent. E.g., about 44% of SLP households are renters, but their voices and interests are rarely raised in neighborhood meetings such as the two that were held by the UCC development team. So, our challenge as elected representatives is to listen to all these constituencies, and then make determinations about policy. And our race equity work, for me, means that I’m listening to a multitude of diverse voices on density, on affordability, on walkability and not just the voices that are loudest in opposition. I am proud of the leadership and expertise I have brought to advancing all of these areas. This is exactly why I ran for office in the first place. And I’m proud of our city and community for sharing and supporting that vision. The allegations made in this Complaint, are absolutely outrageous, go well beyond the parameters of how to resolve disagreements in SLP. I want to be clear: Should this issue remain unresolved this evening, I categorically reserve my rights to pursue claims of City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 13 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 defamation of character against the complainants, including suing for damages arising from their Complaint and false accusations. This is obviously a difficult matter for me and for the city and it’s in all our interests to have it resolved tonight. The last-minute submission of the complainants, for which they clearly spent a bit of time preparing, is a direct attempt to delay this issue. In sum - This complaint is unfounded, is full of false accusations and defamatory attacks. And most importantly and simply, it’s not supported by the record as reflected in your packets this evening. I ask you now to reject the Complaint in total, and specifically to make a determination that these are unsubstantiated and that there are no findings of violations on Section 2.09. I also ask that you make a clear statement that this type of attempt to intimidate and influence city business is unacceptable. Additional comments Mike Witter, 319 Oxford St., stated he was calling about needing all the facts to make a decision and added it is clear all the facts are not evident. He added the council needs to subpoena all those involved and then make a decision. Council deliberation Councilmember Kraft stated he read through all the materials and staff statements, and asked Mr. Harmening if any other staff were involved in this process. Mr. Harmening stated no other staff was involved that would have had any kind of influence over a land use application. Mr. Mattick stated in an email to staff, it was asked that they disclose any and all discussions with Councilmember Mavity. Staff then gave written statements which were added unedited to the council packet for review. Councilmember Brausen stated as he expressed at the beginning of the meeting, he is interested in facts, adding he sees lots of accusations, but he has lots of questions. He stated Councilmember Mavity has recused herself on many projects and continues to do so ongoing. He stated this has been very accusatory and it is difficult for him to see any facts that substantiate these allegations. Councilmember Rog asked if this public process was remarkably different from the public process on other projects, or if it seemed on track. Mr. Harmening stated the meetings referred to in the complaint were not city-led meetings and noted staff had not begun the public process yet on this project. He added staff is now trying to understand better the neighborhood concerns. Mr. Walther stated city staff did not feel any pressure or influence from Councilmember Mavity to adjust the process on this project. He stated this item was brought to council in January for a study session after the developer had a neighborhood meeting at the United Congregational Church. The applicants had one meeting before applying, and then a second meeting with adjustments to the plan, for the neighbors. He stated the city’s formal process would then begin after that time. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 14 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 Councilmember Rog stated it is not uncommon to have informal contact between a developer and a councilmember, adding that UCC and PPL reached out to her as well. She noted typically, Councilmember Mavity would have had contact with them as well. Councilmember Harris asked Mr. Walther if UCC or PPL had reached out to staff to begin the public engagement process. Mr. Walther stated yes, they had. Mr. Mattick stated councilmembers declare if they have a COI at the meeting, but they can also disclose it earlier as well. He stated it is typically done at the meeting as a COI can affect votes. Councilmember Harris stated she has heard Councilmember Mavity disclose COI in the past and this allegation has been summarily disproven throughout the course of review. She thanked Councilmember Mavity for her demonstration of strong ethics. Councilmember Mohamed stated this is uncharted territory, and added in going through the report and listening, she has come to the conclusion that Councilmember Mavity has not interfered with staff. She stated it is practice for all councilmembers to not email or call staff without copying Mr. Harmening and added she does not see any proof here of any wrongdoing on Councilmember Mavity’s part. She added Councilmember Mavity has interests and is passionate about affordable housing, and this is part of her platform. She thanked Mr. Harmening and City Attorney Mattick for walking the council through this complex issue. Mayor Spano asked about the COI and if a recusal applies to actions or comments before an actual vote. Mr. Mattick stated because of the nature of COI, when a person recuses themselves from a vote, there is no rule saying they cannot have discussions or talk to the public about the issue prior to the recusal. Mayor Spano stated this is the larger issue of the neighborhood’s concerns. Mayor Spano asked Mr. Mattick why staff did not make a recommendation to council on the issue of 2.09 in the charter. Mr. Mattick stated the facts were presented and staff did not feel it was appropriate to make a recommendation to council, as they wanted to be unbiased before the council. Mayor Spano stated the comments made this evening by the neighbors were not part of the staff report, adding he believes the council should take some time to look into this further. He stated he is interested in looking at everything and also in having a third party look into this. He added all councilmember have their lives outside of the city council, but he strives to remain as impartial as possible. He again stated he would like to pause on this and have a third party review it further. Councilmember Kraft stated the recusal by Councilmember Mavity has been done and the COI noted. He added he is satisfied with staffs’ comments and the emails that were presented to council, adding he saw nothing abnormal, and no violation of 2.09. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 15 Title: City council meeting minutes of May 18, 2020 Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Kraft adding if an independent investigator were to look at the allegations, a dangerous precedent would be set, and anytime a group is in opposition to a project and there are allegations, there will need to be an independent investigation. He stated these are only allegations with no examples of proof, and just because Councilmember Mavity notifies the neighborhood group of dates of the process, does not mean she is directing the project. Without any facts that document the allegations, there is no need to do a further investigation, and while he stated he is not trying to minimize the concerns of the neighborhood, he noted there will be time for input from neighbors on the project, before any decisions are made by council. Councilmember Rog stated this is uncharted territory, and while she likes residents to be satisfied, and the engagement process to be exhausted, she is not interested in a third-party investigation at this time. She stated she is ready to support the motion. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, that after considering the evidence presented and all reports, a violation of 2.09 did not occur and the complaint will be dismissed in its entirety, with no further action. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Mayor Spano opposed; Councilmember Mavity abstained). 9. Communications - none 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item 4a Executive summary Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolutions approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding documents for Southeast Bikeways (4018-2000) and restricting parking on segments of Wooddale Avenue. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to continue to pursue the bikeway, trail and roadway improvements identified in this report? Summary: On March 2, 2020 council approved the preliminary layout for the southeast area bikeway. This layout includes a bikeway on 38th Street and a system of bikeways that start in Wolfe Park, traverse along Park Commons Drive, south on Quentin Avenue to the of Princeton Avenue and 42 1/2 Street. The bikeway then extends south on Wooddale from 42 1/2 Street to 44th Street. On June 1, 2020 council revised the approved design for the segment of Wooddale Avenue from 44th Street to Morningside Road to remove the parking bays in this segment. The segments create a continuous bikeway from the Rec Center to the city’s south border with Edina as well as connect Minneapolis and the Chain of Lakes to the Excelsior and Grand area. In all, the southeast area bikeways will add 1.72 miles to the network. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2020 and will be paid for using general obligation bonds. The total for this project is estimated at $497,750. Details on the project cost and funding are discussed later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution 4326 Resolution for authorizing bidding documents Resolution for parking restrictions March 2, 2020 council action (pages 153-372) June 1, 2020 council action (pages 86-88) Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Discussion Background: The southeast bikeways are a part of the city’s Connect the Park capital improvement plan (CIP). Connect the Park is designed to create a system that provides sidewalks approximately every 1/4-mile and bikeways every 1/2-mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. What follows is the segment descriptions, all the segments make up a total of 1.72 miles of bikeway: •38th Street from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue (0.4 miles) The four segments below together complete a bike route from the Rec Center to the Edina border (1.32 miles): •From the Rec Center west along the south side of Wolfe Park (0.32 miles) •South from Wolfe Parkway on Park Commons Drive to the intersection with Quentin Avenue (0.07 miles) •South along Quentin Avenue from Park Commons Drive to Princeton Avenue at 42nd 1/2 Street (0.58 miles) •South along Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street (0.35 miles) As in the case with most of the bikeways in the Connect the Park initiative, this transportation project is a retrofit project rather than a full reconstruction of the street. Reconstruction of any of these segments is not on the current 10-year CIP. Instead, this project will make improvements at key locations to further the city’s policy goals of safer travel for all modes of traffic. Project scope: The application of a bikeway is uniquely different on various segments within the project area based on roadway characteristics. The approved design for each segment is as follows: 1.38th Street (Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue) •Advisory bike lanes with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 2.Wolfe Park (Wolfe Parkway to Monterey Drive) •Use existing shared-use trails on the south side of the park parallel to Wolfe Parkway to connect the bikeway from Park Commons Drive and West Wolfe Parkway to the pedestrian crossing of Monterey Drive at 36th 1/2 Street. 3.Park Commons Drive (Quentin Avenue to West Wolfe Parkway) •Convert and widen north sidewalk to shared-use trail and narrow the road with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 4.Princeton and Quentin Avenues (Park Commons Drive to 42nd 1/2 Street) •Shared lane/”sharrow” bikeway with no changes to existing parking restrictions. 5.Wooddale Avenue •42nd 1/2 Street to Morningside Road i.On-street conventional bike lanes with bumped out parking bays to accommodate 6 parking stalls. ii.Mainline on-street parking is restricted on both sides of the road. iii.Center road striping is removed. •Morningside Road to 44th Street i.On-street conventional bike lanes ii.Mainline on-street parking is restricted on both sides of the road. iii.Center road striping is removed. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Financial considerations: General obligation (GO) bonds will fund these segments. There are some savings present in the current design when compared to the CIP shown below. The parking bays that were removed as part of the council action on June 2, 2020 account for much of the cost savings. Project Costs CIP Engineer's estimate Construction costs $450,000 $399,000 Engineering and administration $112,500 $99,750 Project Total $562,500 $497,750 Funding sources Sidewalks and bikeways (GO bonds) $562,500 $497,750 GO bonds are expected to be used to fund the estimated $497,750 for bikeways. The debt service levy for this project will be $57,500, starting in 2021 for ten years. Operation and maintenance costs: This project adds bikeways within the existing roadway. The maintenance responsibilities associated with the infrastructure is currently in place; therefore, there is no appreciable increase in annual operational efforts include snow removal, pavement sweeping, and general upkeep. The bikeway pavement markings (long lines and symbols) and bikeway signage for the project represent approximately $9,300 per year to maintain the markings. Schedule and next steps: Staff will bring the construction bids back to council in late August for approval. Construction is expected to start in early September and take approximately 8 weeks to complete. Southeast Bikeways - project no. 4018-2000 Approve final plans and order ad for bid June 15, 2020 Approve construction bids August 2020 Construction Sept. - Nov. 2020 • RF.SOLUTION NO. ----AUGUST 30, 1971 8K UESOLU'l'ION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF STOP, YIELD AND/OR NO PARKING SIGNS 1"0R TRAFFIC CONTROL WHERF.AS, the City of St. Louis Park hns c,:mscd a traffic analysis to be made of truffic volumes �nd 3ccitlcnt r�tes ut said intersections, and HHEREAS, said analysis indicates that the following control on traffic at said intersections is warranted upon the basis of its phy�ical characteristics and upon driver behavior and traffic conditions, and HHEREAS, Ordin.:ince No. 702, adopted June 8, 19.J9, by th� City Council provides for installation of traffic control Gigns, signals uncl devices when and as required by resolution of the City Council, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis P;:irk thats the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install sizns at the following intersections: Stop signs at intersection of Princeton and Woo<l<lalc Avenues for control of north and south bound traffic Stop sign for vehicles enterine Wooddalc Avenue from Princ;clun Avenue Yield sign for west bound 42\ Street at Prince ton Avenue No Parking on east side of Wooddale Avenue between West44th S trcct ,:nc.l Toledo Avenue No Parking on c.:ist side of Quentin and Princeton Avenues between ExcclsiOJ� i3oulcv.:ird .:ind Woodd::ilc :\venue No Pn1·I�ing on north side of t!cst !�1st Street bet\-lcen Woo<ldule nnd Quentin Avenue� Four-way stop si��n at intc�scction of 41st Strcc: �nd Quentin Avenue Hake pcrm.:lnc:1t tcmpo�ary fo�r-wny st�p sign:; :it 41st Street :mdWoo<l<la le Avenue Ador,tccl by the City Page 4 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving the final plans and authorizing bidding documents for Southeast Bikeways; project no. 4018-2000 Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Manager related to the Southeast Bikeways No. 4018-2000 on March 2, 2020 and June 1, 2020; and, Whereas, at the same June meeting, the preliminary layout was approved, and final plans were ordered to be developed. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The final plans and specifications to construct these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved. 2.The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received electronically by the Project Manager and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. The electronic bids will only be available to view after the bids are closed and the City receives the passcode from the bidding host site. 3.The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the opening date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Resolution No. 20-____ Authorizing installation of parking restrictions on Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Manager related to the Southeast Bikeways No. 4018-2000 on March 2, 2020 and June 1, 2020; and, Whereas, at the same June meeting, the preliminary layout was approved, and final plans were ordered to be developed; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and determined that it is appropriate to install parking restrictions Wooddale Avenue from 42nd 1/2 Street to 44th Street; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the following are rescinded: •Item 4 of Resolution 4326 (All-day parking restrictions on the east side of Wooddale Avenue from 44th Street to Toledo Avenue) It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install all-day parking restrictions on the east side of Wooddale Avenue from the southeast right of way line of Toledo Avenue to 45 feet south of the south right of way line of 42nd 1/2 Street. 2.Install all-day parking restrictions on the east side of Wooddale Avenue from 110 feet south of the south right of way line of 42nd 1/2 Street to the north right of way line of Morningside Road. 3.Install all-day parking restrictions on the east side of Wooddale Avenue from the south right of way line of Morningside Road to the north right of way line of 44th Street. 4.Install all-day parking restrictions on the west side of Wooddale Avenue from the north right of way line of 42nd 1/2 Street to 210 feet north of the north right of way line of Morningside Road. 5.Install all-day parking restrictions on the west side of Wooddale Avenue from 145 feet north of the north right of way line of Morningside Road to the north right of way line of Morningside Road. 6.Install all-day parking restrictions on the west side of Wooddale Avenue from the south right of way line of Morningside Road to the north right of way line of 44th Street. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 7 Title: Southeast Bikeways – Approve plans, specs and authorize ad for bid – project no. 4018-2000 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item 4b Executive summary Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolutions approving the final plans and specifications and authorizing bidding documents for Dakota South Bikeways (4019-2000) and restricting parking on segments of Dakota Avenue. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish staff to continue to pursue the bikeway, trail and roadway improvements identified in this report? Summary: Connect the Park is the city’s 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP) to add bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide network of bikeways, sidewalks, and trails that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. The Dakota south bikeway project received preliminary layout approval through two separate processes. The northerly segment of the bikeway from 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard was approved by council on May 6, 2019. The southerly segment received council approval on December 2, 2019 after additional public process with adjacent property owners. This report combines the two segments into one project for bidding and construction purposes. The bikeway is just over 1 mile long and has a combination of share the road and buffered bike lanes, curb extensions at each intersection, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at Dakota and 26th Street and at Dakota and 33rd Street, installation of parking restrictions on one side of Dakota Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and Lake Street, and modifications to existing side street parking restrictions. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for 2020. The cost to construct the bikeway and undertake the demonstration project is estimated to be $829,688. Details on the project cost and funding are discussed later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolutions 10-021, 2742, 3853, 03-053, 90-86, 88-106 Resolution for authorizing bidding documents Resolution for parking restrictions May 6, 2019 Council Action (pages 132-136) December 2, 2019 Council action (pages 123 – 128) Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, senior engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Discussion Background: The Dakota Avenue corridor is centrally located and is a key north-south connection that will enhance walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as parks, schools, businesses, regional trails, and Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT). The segment from 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard was approved for final design by the council on May 6, 2019 and the segment from Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street that was approved on December 2, 2019. This project is separate from the federally funded Dakota bridge and bikeway from Cedar Lake Road to 26th Street that was approved on March 16, 2020. Project scope: The bikeways on Dakota Avenue are considered a retrofit project that utilizes the existing roadway dimensions to add a bikeway to the corridor. The application of bikeway and the associated impacts are uniquely different on various segments of Dakota Avenue based on roadway characteristics. The approved design for the segments are as follows: Dakota Avenue from 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard includes: •Share the road bikeway •Curb extensions at each intersection •Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crossing Dakota Avenue near 26th Street adjacent to Peter Hobart Elementary School •Parking to remain along this segment. Dakota Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street: •Buffered bike lanes (5-foot lane, 2-foot buffer) •Curb extensions at each intersection •Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crossing Dakota Avenue at 33rd Street adjacent to the high school •Parking restrictions on one side of Dakota Avenue – see the attached parking resolution for more information •Removal of timed parking restrictions o On select side streets adjacent to Dakota Avenue – see attached parking resolution for more information o On Dakota Avenue north of 33rd Street During the preliminary layout, approval council requested that staff expand this project to include a demonstration project to transform the buffered bike lanes to protected bike lanes for a trial period. The design has a two-foot space between the edge of the travel lane and the bike lane. This space allows for a buffer between the vehicles and the bikes. The space is wide enough that vertical delineation, in the form of bollards, could be installed. Since this would be its first application within the city, a trial period would be beneficial to understand the best way to implement this type of design. It will also help us identify operations and maintenance costs. It is recommended to start with a seasonal installation in the spring of 2021 after the snowmelt and street sweeping is completed and end in fall with leaf pick up and winter. The city will be assisted by the consultant firm of SEH to help evaluate the demonstration project to understand how it functions and to determine if it meets the needs of the various Page 3 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 stakeholders such as bicyclists, pedestrians, adjacent property owners, the traveling public and city operations and maintenance staff. The data collection is expected to consist of: •In-person public engagement activities •Interactive online questionnaires to understand how all stakeholders feel about the bollard implementation •Bicycle, automobile (speed and volume) and parking utilization counts before and multiple times during the demonstration project •A report will be presented to council later in 2021 with the findings of the demonstration project and the stakeholder feedback. In addition, the report will include staff time necessary to perform maintenance and identify future equipment needed to maintain this type of bicycle facility. This information will be helpful in informing future bikeway design alternatives. The demonstration project is estimated to cost $75,000 to fully implement the installation, evaluation, removal and develop the summary report. The demonstration project will be using a combination of bollards with “curb” connectors (figure 1) and free-standing bollards (figure 2) to provide a balance of vertical delineation from vehicle traffic and access to driveways and cross streets. Figure 2 –free-standing bollards Figure 1 –bollards with “curb” connectors Page 4 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Financial considerations: This project is being paid for using General obligation (GO) bonds. The CIP estimate was based on 30-percent preliminary plans and assumed 2019 construction costs, since this project was originally planned for construction in 2019. Since that time, there has been considerable work completed to refine the final plans. This has resulted in an increase to the construction cost of almost 10%. The increase is attributed to the construction costs that we’ve seen on some of our projects that have bid out in 2020. In addition, we have added 5- percent contingency. The following table outlines the current project costs. The increased engineering costs are the result of the additional public process needed to develop the project between Minnetonka Boulevard and Lake Street. Project Costs CIP Engineer's estimate Construction cost 600,000 656,250 Engineering and administration $90,000 $98,438 Project Total $690,000 $754,688 Demonstration Project CIP Engineer's estimate Bikeway Bollard installation – Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street $0 75,000 Funding sources Sidewalks and bikeways (GO bonds) $690,000 $829,688 GO bonds are expected to be used to fund the estimated $829,688 for bikeways and the demonstration project. The debt service levy for this project will be $96,218 starting in 2021 for ten years. Operation and maintenance costs: This project adds bikeway to the existing roadway and enhanced pedestrian crossings. However, the maintenance responsibilities associated with the infrastructure is currently in place; therefore, there is no appreciable increase in annual operational efforts include snow removal, pavement sweeping, and general upkeep. The bikeway pavement markings (long lines and symbols) and bikeway signage for the project represent approximately $9,000 per year to maintain the markings. Demonstration project Operations will play a key role in the demonstration project. During the evaluation period they will document damage to bollards and staff time responding to repairs. In addition, they will be testing out existing equipment to see if they can perform sweeping and snow removal. If the existing equipment is not sufficient, they will be developing recommendations for capital equipment purchases. All this information will be put together and included in the report to council in order to help inform our bikeway designs and capital costs. Page 5 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Schedule and next steps: Staff will bring the construction bids back to council in late August for approval. The project is expected to start construction in early September and take approximately 8 to 9 weeks to complete. Dakota South Bikeways - project no. 4019-2000 Approve final plans and order ad for bid June 15, 2020 Approve construction bids August 2020 Construction Sept. - Nov. 2020 Demonstration project Spring to Fall 2021 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Page 6 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Page 7 Page 8 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Resolution No. 20-___ Resolution approving the final plans and authorizing bidding documents for Dakota South Bikeway improvements; project no. 4019-2000 Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Manager related to the Dakota South Bikeway Improvements No. 4019-2000 on May 6, 2019 for the segment between 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and on December 2, 2019 for the segment between Minnetonka Boulevard and Lake Street. Whereas, at the same meetings, the preliminary layout was approved, and final plans were ordered to be developed. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The final plans and specifications to construct these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved. 2.The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received electronically by the Project Manager and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. The electronic bids will only be available to view after the bids are closed and the City receives the passcode from the bidding host site. 3.The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the opening date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Page 9 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 Resolution No. 20-___ Authorizing installation of parking restrictions on Dakota Avenue from 26th Street to Lake Street and side streets Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Manager related to the Dakota South Bikeway Improvements No. 4019-2000 on May 6, 2019 for the segment between 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and on December 2, 2019 for the segment between Minnetonka Boulevard and Lake Street; and, Whereas, at the same meetings, the preliminary layout was approved, and final plans were ordered to be developed; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and determined that it is appropriate to install parking restrictions on Dakota Avenue from 26th Street to Lake Street; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the following are rescinded: •Resolution 10-021 (Permit parking on the east side of the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue South) •Resolution 2742 (Two-hour parking on the east side of Dakota Avenue from 33rd Street to the railroad) •Resolution 3853 (Two-hour parking on the west side of Dakota Avenue from 33rd Street to 440 feet north) •Item 7 of Resolution 03-053 (“No Parking” restrictions on the east side of Dakota Avenue from 131 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard to 123 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard) •Item 8 of Resolution 03-053 (“No Parking” restrictions on the west side of Dakota Avenue from 130 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard to 43 feet north of Minnetonka Boulevard) •Resolution 90-86 (Permit parking on both sides of 33rd Street from Dakota Avenue to Colorado Avenue) •Item 4 of Resolution 88-106 (Permit parking on both sides of 32nd Street from Dakota Avenue to Hampshire Avenue) It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install all-day parking restrictions on the west side of Dakota Avenue from the south right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard to 120 feet north of the north right of way line of West 32nd Street. 2.Install all-day parking restrictions on the east side of Dakota Avenue from the south right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard to 50 feet south of the south right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard. Page 10 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: Approve final plans, authorize ad for bid Dakota South Bikeways – project no. 4019-2000 3.Install all-day parking restrictions on the east side of Dakota Avenue from 140 feet south of the south right of way line of East 32nd Street to the northwest right of way line of Lake Street. 4.Install all-day parking restrictions on both sides of Dakota Avenue from the north right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard to 160 feet north of the north right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard. 5.Install permit parking restrictions (7 a.m. – 4 p.m. on school days) on both sides of 32nd Street from Edgewood Avenue to Hampshire Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive** •Motion to adopt Ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area, approve summary, and authorize publication. •Motion to adopt Resolution to impose fees. •Motion to authorize execution of contract for private development and any other related documents, by the mayor and city manager, between the city and the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association, in a form consistent with the terms of the ordinance and resolution. Policy consideration: Does the city council support the creation of a Housing Improvement Area for the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association? Summary: The city is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made, and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously established seven HIAs. The South Cedar Trails HIA proposal meets the intent of the city policy. In April 2020, the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association (Association) submitted signed petitions from a majority of owners requesting the city council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees. Per state statute, cities may only establish an HIA when 50% or more of the association owners petition the city to do so. Petitions have been received and validated from 88%, or 28 of the 32 owners. The public hearing was held May 4 and held open for testimony until May 18. Four comments supporting the HIA were received and were included in the May 18 city council report. The fee schedule has been amended with updated bids received by the association. Unit fees remained the same or decreased from the original petitioned fee schedule. The city council adopted the first reading of the ordinance establishing the HIA at the May 18 meeting. Financial or budget considerations: HIA will be funded using an internal loan from the housing rehab fund. The total project cost, including soft costs is $591,845. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; Ordinance; Resolution; Summary ordinance for publication; Notice of ordinance and resolution Prepared by: Marney Olson, assistant housing supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, housing supervisor/ deputy CD director Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Discussion Background: The city is authorized by the state to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made, and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 for private housing improvements for condominium and townhouse associations. The South Cedar Trails HIA proposal meets the intent of the city policy. The HIA statute requires the council to provide full disclosure of public expenditures, as well as the terms of any loans, bonds or other financial arrangements for housing improvement area projects prior to establishing a housing improvement area. This information was discussed in the public hearing notice and at both the May 4, 2020 and May 18, 2020 city council meetings. It is also included in the attached resolution. Four written public comments were received in support of the South Cedar Trails HIA. The fee schedule and HIA costs have been updated since the May 18 council meeting. Section 428A.14 of the HIA Act provides: the implementing entity may adopt a resolution imposing a fee within the area not exceeding the amount expressed in the notice issued under this section. The updated HIA fee schedule is for $591,845 which is less than the $623,300 originally requested when association members petitioned the city council to hold a public hearing on the creation of the HIA. All individual unit fees remain the same or lower than the original petitioned unit fee. The maximum loan amount will be $591,845 with a 15 year term at an estimated 2.91% interest rate. Updated fee schedule: South Cedar Trails HIA 15 Years Breakdown of capital costs Parking Lot $79,650 Landscaping/drainage $115,500 Fencing $73,475 Garage doors $26,600 Windows $255,652 Contingency $15,968 Total capital costs $566,845 Breakdown of soft costs City administrative fee $5,000 Legal fee $15,000 Financial advisor $5,000 Total soft costs $25,000 Total project costs $591,845 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Required implementation actions: 1. Ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area The ordinance establishes a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. The ordinance documents the process and provides the finance tool for common area improvements. Significant issues addressed in the ordinance include: • The city’s goal to maintain and preserve the city’s housing stock and stabilize neighborhoods. • A majority of owners filed a petition requesting a public hearing regarding establishment of the HIA. • The association has documented that without establishment of the HIA the common area improvements could not be made. • A public hearing was conducted May 4, 2020 and left open until May 18, 2020. The city is required to publish a summary of the ordinance (attached) and mail the ordinance summary to owners of all units within five days of adoption of the ordinance. 2. Resolution to impose fees The resolution ensures that the city meets statutory requirements of imposing fees to unit owners for repayment of the association loan. The fee shall be imposed as follows: The portion of the HIA fee attributable to common elements shall be divided evenly among the 32 housing units and the portion of the HIA fee attributable to windows shall be allocated based on the number of windows installed in each housing unit. State statute 428A.14 requires that “if a fee is imposed on a basis other than the tax capacity or square footage of the housing unit, the council must make a finding that the alternative basis for the fee is “more fair and reasonable.” Staff consulted with Kennedy and Graven regarding the basis of the fees which have been found to meet statutory requirements of being more fair and reasonable since it is consistent with the association’s HOA dues which are divided evenly among the 32 housing units and the windows are being calculated separately so homeowners only pay for widows they are having installed. Additional key elements of the resolution include: • Fees will be payable beginning in 2021. • Fees will be payable with real estate tax payments. • The process for prepayment of fees by owners is described. • A veto period of 45 days follows the adoption of the ordinance and the HIA will not be established if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units file a written objection with the city clerk. The city is required to mail a summary of the resolution (attached) to owners of all units within five days of its approval along with a notice of the veto process. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 4 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 3. Contract for private development The city would enter into a contract for private development with the South Cedar Trails association after the 45 day veto period expires. Kennedy & Graven will draft the private development agreement and staff will work with Kennedy & Graven and association board members on any revisions. The major components of the development agreement will include: • Association will provide ongoing financial reports & records for the term of the loan. • Association will provide its assets (in the form of dues, fees, assessments and covenants) as security to the city. • Association will retain a replacement reserve fund agreed upon by the city and association for the term of the loan. • Association will retain professional property management for the term of loan. • Association will ensure improvements are completed according to specific requirements. • Monies will be disbursed as work is verified by city representatives as being completed. • Association will provide notice of fee to prospective buyers. 4. Internal loan There will be an internal loan from the city’s housing rehab fund to the association. The South Cedar Trails HIA will be funded entirely with the internal loan. The loan will have a 15 year term and 2.91% interest. Disbursements will be made to the association upon written certification that items proposed for payment are complete and necessary. Next steps: By June 20, 2020 Mail summary of ordinance and resolution to unit owners By July 15, 2020 Mail ordinance to Commissioner of Revenue July 30, 2020 Veto period ends August 10, 2020 Prepayments due August 17, 2020 Housing rehab fund loan and development agreement approved August 18, 2020 Association can move forward with construction City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 5 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 The City of St. Louis Park does hereby ordain: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the "city") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The City Council of the city (the “council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001 (the “HIA Policy”). 1.03. The city has determined a need to establish the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (South Cedar Trails HIA) as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Association"), all in accordance with the HIA Policy. 1.04. The city has consulted with the Association and with residents in the proposed South Cedar Trails HIA regarding the establishment of the South Cedar Trails HIA and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 50 percent of the housing units within the proposed South Cedar Trails HIA have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding the establishment of the South Cedar Trails HIA. 2.02. In accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, the council opened a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2020, which was continued until May 18, 2020, and held on that date, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all persons, including owners of property within the proposed South Cedar Trails HIA, were given an opportunity to be heard. 2.03. The council finds that, without establishment of the South Cedar Trails HIA, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the Association or the owners of housing units therein. 2.04. The council further finds that designation of the South Cedar Trails HIA is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. 2.05. The council further finds that by Resolution No. 20-____ adopted on the date hereof (the “Fee Resolution”), the city has provided full disclosure of public expenditures, loans, or City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 6 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) other financing arrangements in connection with the South Cedar Trails HIA, and has determined that the Association will contract for the Housing Improvements. 2.06. The city will be the implementing entity for the South Cedar Trails HIA and the Housing Improvement Fee (as set forth in the Fee Resolution and Section 5 below). 2.07. The council finds that the South Cedar Trails HIA meets each of the approval criteria contained in the HIA Policy (listed as 4.01A- 4.01N), including the criterion that a majority of the association owners support the project and the financing thereof. The Association presented evidence to the council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including presentation to the council of the petitions described in 2.01 above. Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined. 3.01. The South Cedar Trails HIA is hereby defined as the area of the city legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3.02. The South Cedar Trails HIA contains 32 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with garage units and common areas. Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined. 4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance, the Fee Resolution, and the South Cedar Trails HIA, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to housing units, garages, and common areas within the South Cedar Trails HIA: remove and replace parking lot; new landscaping and drainage to include a new French drain system, replacing retaining walls and new plant materials; remove and dispose of existing fence and install new privacy fence; remove and replace 32 garage doors; remove and replace windows as needed in individual units. 4.02. The Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include: (a) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the South Cedar Trails HIA; (b) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Act; and (c) interest on the internal loan as described in Section 6.01. Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The city may, by resolution adopt in accordance with the petitions, hearing and notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA, at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 5.02. The portion of the Housing Improvement Fee attributable to the Common Elements shall be divided evenly among the 32 housing units, and the portion of the Housing City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 7 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Improvement Fee attributable to windows shall be allocated based on the number of windows installed in each housing unit. 5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than 15 years after the first installment is due and payable. 5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in accordance with the terms specified in the Fee Resolution. 5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the Fee Resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan. 6.01. At any time after a contract with the Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun as described in Section 5.04 hereof, the council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of an internal loan (the “Loan”) of available city funds in the principal amounts necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. Section 7. Annual Reports. 7.01. No later than August 15, 2021, and each August 15 thereafter until there are no longer any outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the South Cedar Trails HIA, the Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the Association's audited financial statements. 7.02. The Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to the city any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between the Association and the city, or as the city may request. Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections. 8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the South Cedar Trails HIA: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 9. Amendment. 9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the council upon compliance with the public hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act. Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after adoption hereof. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 8 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading May 18, 2020 Second reading June 15, 2020 Date of publication June 25, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect July 30, 2020 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 9 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ____-20 Legal description Lots 1-64, both inclusive, Block 1, South Cedar Trails, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Lot 65, Block 1, South Cedar Trails, Hennepin County, Minnesota City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 10 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota statutes, sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the "city") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The City Council of the city (the “council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001 (the “HIA Policy”). 1.03. By Ordinance No. ____-20 adopted on June 15, 2020 (the "Enabling Ordinance"), the council has established the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Housing Improvement Area (the “South Cedar Trails HIA”) in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association, Inc." (the “Association”) all in accordance with the HIA Policy and the Act. 1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 50 percent of the housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA have filed petitions with the City Clerk of the city requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing improvement fee for the South Cedar Trails HIA. 1.05. In accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, the council opened a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2020, which was continued until May 18, 2020 and held on that date, regarding adoption of this resolution, at which all persons, including owners of property within the South Cedar Trails HIA, were given an opportunity to be heard. 1.06. The council finds that the South Cedar Trails HIA meets each of the approval criteria contained in the HIA Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the financing thereof. 1.07. Prior to the date hereof, the Association has submitted to the city a financial plan prepared by Cedar Management, Inc., an independent third party, that provides for the Association to finance maintenance and operation of the Common Elements in the Association (as defined in the Association’s bylaws) and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act. 1.08. For the purposes of this resolution, the terms "South Cedar Trails HIA" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in the Enabling Ordinance. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 11 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed. 2.01. The city hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the South Cedar Trails HIA (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, which is imposed for (i) Housing Improvements divided evenly among the housing units, and (ii) windows based on the number of windows installed in each unit, all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated Declaration of South Cedar Trails Association. 2.02. The council hereby finds that the Housing Improvement Fee for the Common Elements is imposed based on 1/32 ownership of the Common Elements, as provided in the Association’s bylaws. The Housing Improvement Fee is divided evenly among the 32 units in the South Cedar Trails HIA, with the exception of the portion of the Housing Improvement Fee allocated to windows, which is based on the number of windows installed in each unit. The Council expressly finds that this basis for allocation of costs aligns with the ownership and Association fee methodology in effect for the Association, and is thus more fair and reasonable than imposition of a Housing Improvement Fee on the basis of tax capacity or square footage. 2.03. Housing unit owners may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest thereon between the effective date of this resolution and August 10, 2020. The amount of the prepayment is shown under the heading “Total Cost (Prepayment Amount)” in Exhibit A attached hereto. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer. Housing unit owners may also fully prepay the unpaid portion of their Housing Improvement Fee in any subsequent year. If a prepayment is made by November 15 of any year, the amount must include interest at the rate of 2.91% through the end of that calendar year. If the prepayment is made after November 15, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. 2.04. If the total Housing Improvement Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution and August 10, 2020, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount shown under the heading “Annual Fee” in Exhibit A. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2021, for a period no greater than 15 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest at an annual interest rate of 2.91 percent per annum shall begin to accrue on the Housing Improvement Fee from the date of closing on the loan of city or Economic Development Authority funds to finance the Housing Improvements. The Annual Fee shall be structured such that estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest on the Housing Improvement Fee. 2.05. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and August 10, 2020, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Sections 428A.15 and 428A.05 of the Act. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 12 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 2.06. A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections. 3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the South Cedar Trails HIA: a summary of this resolution, notice that owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this resolution if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this resolution, and notice that a copy of this resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. After August 11, 2020, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update of Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists of the county for taxes payable in 2021 and thereafter. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 13 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 20-____ City of St. Louis Park Housing Improvement Area - South Cedar Trails HIA Assessment Allocation Association Unit No.PID Percentage Interest Total Common Area Construction Cost Total Financing & Soft Costs Total Construction Cost Windows TOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT) * Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs) Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid only 4401 30-029-24-43-0033 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4405 30-029-24-43-0032 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4409 30-029-24-43-0031 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4413 30-029-24-43-0030 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4417 30-029-24-43-0034 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4421 30-029-24-43-0035 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4425 30-029-24-43-0036 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4429 30-029-24-43-0037 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4433 30-029-24-43-0025 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4437 30-029-24-43-0024 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4441 30-029-24-43-0023 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4445 30-029-24-43-0022 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4449 30-029-24-43-0026 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4453 30-029-24-43-0027 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $1,681 $12,187 $1,064.70 $15,970.44 4457 30-029-24-43-0028 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4461 30-029-24-43-0029 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4501 30-029-24-43-0009 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4505 30-029-24-43-0008 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4509 30-029-24-43-0007 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4513 30-029-24-43-0006 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4517 30-029-24-43-0010 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4521 30-029-24-43-0011 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4525 30-029-24-43-0012 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $5,068 $15,574 $1,360.59 $20,408.92 4529 30-029-24-43-0013 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4533 30-029-24-43-0017 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4537 30-029-24-43-0016 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4541 30-029-24-43-0015 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4545 30-029-24-43-0014 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4549 30-029-24-43-0018 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4553 30-029-24-43-0019 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4557 30-029-24-43-0020 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $5,068 $15,574 $1,360.59 $20,408.92 4561 30-029-24-43-0021 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 GRAND TOTAL 100.00%$311,193 $25,000 $255,652 $591,845 $51,705.39 $775,580.79 SOUTH CEDAR TRAILS HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA South Cedar Trails * Note: Annual fee amount is calculated based upon payment of total costs at 105% City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 14 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Summary for publication Ordinance No. ____-20 Ordinance establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 This ordinance establishes the South Cedar Trail Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area, which is the area legally described on Exhibit A of the Ordinance, and specifies the "Housing Improvements" that will be constructed in South Cedar Trails Housing Improvement Area and financed with the Housing Improvement Fee. This ordinance provides that the city may impose a fee on housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing Improvements (the “Housing Improvement Fee”). The Housing Improvement Fee is set by a separate city council resolution, but the ordinance lays out the ground rules on how the Housing Improvement Fee will be determined. Those rules are summarized as follows: •The portion of the Housing Improvement Fee attributable to the Common Elements shall be divided evenly among the 32 housing units. •The portion of the Housing Improvement Fee attributable to windows shall be allocated based on the number of windows installed in each housing unit. •The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the resolution. •The Housing Improvement Fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes. •The total Housing Improvement Fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing for the resolution imposing the Housing Improvement Fee. This ordinance provides that at any time after a contract with the Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun, the council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of an internal loan of available city funds in the principal amount necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 15 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Notice to residents of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association regarding South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area and Housing Improvement Fee On June 15, 2020 the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park adopted Ordinance No.____-20 establishing the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area, and Resolution No. ____-20 imposing a housing improvement fee to finance housing improvements in that area, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act"). Owners of more than 50 percent of the housing units the South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (South Cedar Trails HIA) filed petitions with the city clerk requesting a public hearing regarding both the ordinance and the fee resolution. The public hearings for the ordinance and the fee resolution were held on May 4, 2020 and continued until May 18, 2020. Within 5 days after adoption of the ordinance and the resolution, the city is required under the Housing Improvement Act to mail this notice to owners of each housing unit in the affected area. Following is a summary of the ordinance and the resolution, and important information about your rights as an owner of a housing unit in the South Cedar Trails HIA. Summary of Ordinance No.____-20 Housing improvement area defined: The South Cedar Trails HIA is defined as the area of the city legally described in Exhibit A of the ordinance and contains 32 housing units along with garage units and common areas. Housing improvements defined: The ordinance defines the “housing improvements” as the following improvements to housing units, garages, and common areas within the South Cedar Trails HIA: remove and replace parking lot; new landscaping and drainage to include a new French drain system, replacing retaining walls and new plant materials; remove and dispose of existing fence and install new privacy fence; remove and replace 32 garage doors; remove and replace windows as needed in individual units. The improvements shall also include all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the South Cedar Trails HIA, cost of arranging financing and interest on the internal loan. Housing improvement fee: The ordinance provides that the city may impose a fee on housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing Improvements (the “Housing Improvement Fee”). The Housing Improvement Fee is set by a separate city council resolution, but the ordinance lays out the ground rules on how the Housing Improvement Fee will be determined. Those rules are summarized as follows: •The portion of the Housing Improvement Fee attributable to the Common Elements shall be divided evenly among the 32 housing units. •The portion of the Housing Improvement Fee attributable to windows shall be allocated based on the number of windows installed in each housing unit. •The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid according to the terms set forth in the resolution. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 16 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) •The Housing Improvement Fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes. •The total Housing Improvement Fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing for the resolution imposing the Housing Improvement Fee. Financing: This ordinance provides that at any time after a contract with the Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun, the council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of an internal loan of available city funds in the principal amount necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. Annual report: The ordinance requires that South Cedar Trails association submit audited financial statements to the city each year while there are outstanding obligations issued under the Act. Summary of Resolution No. 20-____ Fee imposed: The resolution describes the Housing Improvement Fee for each housing unit. The Housing Improvement Fee is divided evenly among the 32 units in the South Cedar Trails HIA, with the exception of the portion of the Housing Improvement Fee allocated to windows, which is based on the number of windows installed in each unit. The Council expressly finds that this basis for allocation of costs aligns with the ownership and Association fee methodology in effect for the Association, and is thus more fair and reasonable than imposition of a Housing Improvement Fee on the basis of tax capacity or square footage. The estimated total cost of the housing improvements is: $591,845 including administrative, legal and finance costs. The annual fee per unit is shown on Exhibit A to the resolution. Prepayment: The Housing Improvement Fee may be prepaid in total and without interest between the effective date of the resolution and August 10, 2020. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer. Housing unit owners may also fully prepay the unpaid portion of their Housing Improvement Fee in any subsequent year. If a prepayment is made by November 15 of any year, the amount must include interest at the rate of 2.91% through the end of that calendar year. If the prepayment is made after November 15, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. Annual payment: If the total Housing Improvement Fee is not paid by August 10, 2020, the Housing Improvement Fee will be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2021, for a period no greater than 15 years after the first installment is due and payable. The fee will include interest at a rate of 2.91%. County Fee: A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 17 Title: Establishment of South Cedar Trails Homeowners Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Notice of right to file objections Housing unit owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto either the ordinance, the fee resolution, or both if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the South Cedar Trails HIA file a written objection with the city clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The key dates are: Ordinance and resolution adopted: June 15, 2020 Date ordinance and resolution take effect; veto/objection filing deadline: July 30, 2020 City deadline to prepay fee in full without interest: August 10, 2020 Further information Copies of Ordinance No. ____-20 and Resolution No. 20-____are on file with the city clerk for public inspection. The fee for each unit is attached as Exhibit A to the resolution and shown below. If you have questions about the South Cedar Trails HIA or the housing improvement fee, contact Marney Olson, assistant housing supervisor, at 952.924.2196 or molson@stlouispark.org. Dated: June 19, 2020 City of St. Louis Park Housing Improvement Area - South Cedar Trails HIA Assessment Allocation Association Unit No.PID Percentage Interest Total Common Area Construction Cost Total Financing & Soft Costs Total Construction Cost Windows TOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT) *Annual Fee (105% of Total Costs) Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid only 4401 30-029-24-43-0033 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4405 30-029-24-43-0032 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4409 30-029-24-43-0031 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4413 30-029-24-43-0030 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4417 30-029-24-43-0034 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4421 30-029-24-43-0035 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4425 30-029-24-43-0036 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4429 30-029-24-43-0037 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4433 30-029-24-43-0025 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4437 30-029-24-43-0024 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4441 30-029-24-43-0023 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4445 30-029-24-43-0022 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4449 30-029-24-43-0026 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4453 30-029-24-43-0027 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $1,681 $12,187 $1,064.70 $15,970.44 4457 30-029-24-43-0028 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4461 30-029-24-43-0029 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4501 30-029-24-43-0009 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4505 30-029-24-43-0008 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4509 30-029-24-43-0007 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4513 30-029-24-43-0006 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4517 30-029-24-43-0010 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4521 30-029-24-43-0011 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4525 30-029-24-43-0012 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $5,068 $15,574 $1,360.59 $20,408.92 4529 30-029-24-43-0013 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4533 30-029-24-43-0017 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4537 30-029-24-43-0016 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4541 30-029-24-43-0015 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4545 30-029-24-43-0014 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $11,890 $22,396 $1,956.59 $29,348.79 4549 30-029-24-43-0018 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $8,329 $18,835 $1,645.49 $24,682.29 4553 30-029-24-43-0019 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 4557 30-029-24-43-0020 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $5,068 $15,574 $1,360.59 $20,408.92 4561 30-029-24-43-0021 0.03125 $9,725 $781 $0 $10,506 $917.84 $13,767.58 GRAND TOTAL 100.00%$311,193 $25,000 $255,652 $591,845 $51,705.39 $775,580.79 SOUTH CEDAR TRAILS HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA South Cedar Trails *Note: Annual fee amount is calculated based upon payment of total costs at 105% Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Second amendment to preliminary development agreement - Sherman Associates Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as Time-Sensitive** •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the EDA, city, and Sherman Associates relative to the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to extend the preliminary development agreement with Sherman Associates so as to continue joint efforts to prepare a mixed-use development plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site? Summary: On Feb. 5, 2018, the EDA and city council approved a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between the EDA, city and Sherman Associates in which the parties pledged to work cooperatively together toward a mutually acceptable mixed-use redevelopment plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site. The agreement was subsequently extended on June 17, 2019. The EDA received a project status update at the Sept. 23, 2019 study session. Over the past two years, the parties have been working collaboratively on a joint development vision for the site which has required the parties to work through multiple and significant site development and infrastructure issues. Given that progress continues to be made on all these fronts, the parties are working toward a mutually acceptable redevelopment program and site plan. The PDA expires June 30, 2020 unless it is extended. Given the progress made to date and the parties’ ongoing mutual interest in the proposed redevelopment, the parties wish to extend the PDA to June 30, 2021 by which point the parties hope to reach a formal Purchase and Redevelopment Contract. The proposed PDA extension requires approval by both the EDA and city council. In connection with the Beltline development, the EDA and Sherman Associates entered into a loan agreement under which the EDA loaned $3.1 million to Sherman Associates to finance a portion of the cost to acquire a key parcel of the development (the former Vision Bank property). Sherman Associates have repaid over $2.1 million of the loan to date. Under the current loan agreement, the loan matures on June 30, 2020. The proposed first amendment to loan agreement extends the maturity date for the EDA’s loan to Sherman to June 30, 2021 to match the extended date of the Preliminary Development Agreement. Financial or budget considerations: The proposed first amendment to loan agreement allows the parties to address payment of the remaining loan balance (approximately $920,920) through the anticipated purchase and redevelopment contract. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Second amendment available by contacting staff. Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager and EDA executive director City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Second amendment to preliminary development agreement - Sherman Associates Discussion Background: The Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) with Sherman Associates defines the parties’ respective responsibilities relative to preparing a redevelopment program and site plan consistent with the parties’ mutual objectives, provides Sherman Associates with formal permission to access the Beltline Blvd Station Site in order to continue conducting its due diligence, and provides Sherman with exclusive rights to negotiate acquisition of the subject properties with the EDA and the city. Additionally, the PDA formalizes the respective parties’ obligations under the SWLRT Funding Agreements with the Metropolitan Council and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant with the Federal Transit Administration for the structured public parking at the SWLRT Beltline Blvd Station. The PDA is essential tp provide Sherman with assurance of its ability to secure the subject properties once a mutually acceptable redevelopment plan for the site has been reached. Next steps: The parties are continuing their work on a mutually acceptable redevelopment program and site plan for the Beltline Blvd Station Redevelopment Site and intend to complete that work within the next year. Anticipated discretionary approvals from the council/EDA for the Beltline project include: 1.EAW distribution, findings, and declaration 2.Formal financial assistance request 3.Utility and right-of-way vacations including vacation of the frontage road 4.Preliminary and final plat 5.Preliminary and final PUD 6.Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (including tax increment financing) Sherman plans to work through the first two items above this fall/winter and intends to apply for final planning and redevelopment contract approvals by spring next year. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Second amendment to preliminary development agreement - Sherman Associates Resolution No. 20 - ____ Resolution approving a second amendment to the preliminary development agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, the City of St. Louis Park, and Beltline Development LLC Whereas, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, as amended, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) administers its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) and the Authority own certain property (the “Property”) within the Project, which Property has been the subject of certain preliminary negotiations with Beltline Development LLC (the “Developer”) for purposes of constructing a mixed-use (multi-family residential and commercial) development on the Property and related parking, including a parking ramp serving in part as a park and ride facility for Metro Transit’s proposed Southwest Light Rail Transit Beltline station (the “Development”); and Whereas, the City, the Authority, and the Developer executed a Preliminary Development Agreement, dated as of February 5, 2018 (the “Agreement”), providing for the performance of certain activities on the part of the parties in preparation for the negotiation of a definitive Purchase and Redevelopment Contract in connection with the Property, and executed a First Amendment to the Agreement dated as of June 17, 2019, extending the dates of performance of each party’s activities under the Agreement; and Whereas, the parties have negotiated and now propose to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) to further extend the deadline for the completion of these preliminary activities for a period of up to twelve months. Now therefore be it resolved by the City of St. Louis Park that the Second Amendment as presented to the City Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the Second Amendment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. It is further resolved that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Second Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out, on behalf of the City, its obligations thereunder. It is further resolved that City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 4 Title: Second amendment to preliminary development agreement - Sherman Associates Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: Final payment resolution – 2018 Pavement Management Project (Area 6) – Project No. 4018-1000 Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $67,109.65 for project no. 4018-1000 pavement management (Area 6) with Northdale Construction Company, Contract No. 47-18. Policy consideration: Not applicable Summary: On April 2, 2018, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $4,502,571.59 to Northdale Construction Company for the 2018 Pavement Management Project, project 4018-1000. The project included roadway, utility, sidewalk and fiber optic work in the Elmwood, Brooklawns and Brookside neighborhoods. The final contract amount for this project is $4,930,617.79. The contract increase is attributed to various site constraints and field modifications necessary to provide a quality project for the community. Details on the contract changes and quantity overruns is included in the discussion section of this report. Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 47-18 is included in the discussion section of this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Final payment resolution – 2018 Pavement Management Project (Area 6) – Project No. 4018-1000 Discussion Background: Annually, the city rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets as part of the pavement management program. Pavement Management Area 6 included street rehabilitation work which consisted of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work included sewer repairs and select watermain replacement within the neighborhood. In addition to the street rehabilitation activities, staff integrated new sidewalk segments into the project for cost savings, reduction in customer inconvenience, and contractor coordination. On April 2, 2018, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $4,502,571.59 to Northdale Construction Company for the 2018 Pavement Management Project, project 4018- 1000. During construction, several unexpected items came up that added to the cost of the project. The additional work that was completed increased the cost of the contract by $428,046.20, resulting in a final contract amount for this project is $4,930,617.79. These include $240,090.67 in changes orders/extra work and $187,955.53 in quantity overruns. The additional work was necessary to ensure there is quality street, sidewalk and utility infrastructure for years to come and to address resident requests. A description of the additional work: •Project plans included a retaining wall on the south side of a new sidewalk planned for Zarthan Avenue. After removing the existing wall, the contractor and city staff determined that the small block retaining wall initially designed for this location, would not be adequate due to how high the wall would be required to be based on existing grades. We met with property owners and used their feedback to develop a solution. The revised design was to build a two-tier retaining wall using large retaining wall blocks. The cost for the retaining wall was $138,125.81. For resident safety, a railing was required on top of the wall. The cost for the railing was $52,255.50. Total cost for the retaining wall, railing, lowering of a sewer service and other associated work was $190,391.31. The new retaining wall was installed in the fall of 2018 and the railing on top the wall was installed in the spring of 2020. •On June 23, 2019, there was a water leak near 5911 Oxford street. The contractor dug up the water service and determined the leak was outside the project limits on private property. While the contractor had the water service dug up, they replaced the portion of water service between the main and the curb stop (city ownership). The cost to do this additional work was $12,579.72. The city set up and maintained temporary water service to the condominium building until a permanent fix was completed by their management on the private portion of the water service. •Extra work of approximately $37,000 was completed during construction to address additional watermain repairs that the city was not aware of pre-construction, plan modification to save trees from being removed as a result of watermain replacement, disposal of a small area of subgrade material that was not suitable for grading material and additional ADA improvements. •Various site constraints and resident feedback resulted in field modifications during construction lead to quantity overruns of approx. $188,000. These were needed to provide a quality project for the neighborhood. Examples of the quantity overruns are: o Additional sidewalk, driveway and curb removal and replacement in Elmwood neighborhood. In addition to adding new sidewalk to the neighborhood, the city City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: Final payment resolution – 2018 Pavement Management Project (Area 6) – Project No. 4018-1000 looks to repair or replace existing sidewalk/curb that is damaged or has become a tripping hazard. This additional concrete work was identified during construction and is approximately half of the total quantity overruns on this project. o Demolition debris was found during excavation of the road subgrade; this material needed to be excavated and hauled off site. Replacement material needed to be brought in to ensure a good street foundation for the new pavement and underground utilities. o In several areas of the project, residents requested that the city extend the construction limits to address concerns and improve the quality of the finished product. This meant more topsoil and sod was installed than estimated. Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 47-18 has been calculated as follows: Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 4,502,571.59 Change Orders/ extra work +$ 240,090.67 Quantity overruns +$ 187,955.53 Final contract cost $ 4,930,617.79 Previous payments -$ 4,863,508.14 Balance due $ 67,109.65 This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by the following sources: pavement management, water utility, storm utility, sanitary sewer utility and general obligation bonds (sidewalk and fiber). Due to the nature of our construction projects, unforeseen circumstances, and resident feedback, it is not unusual to have additional work added to our projects. To address this, when the bid is awarded, we assume a 10% contingency for all aspects of the project. The costs detailed above represent a 9.5% increase to this project. This is within the planned contingency and there are adequate funds to cover these costs. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: Final payment resolution – 2018 Pavement Management Project (Area 6) – Project No. 4018-1000 Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution authorizing final payment and accepting work for the 2018 Pavement Management Project City Project No. 4018-1000 Contract No. 47-18 Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1.Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 2, 2018, Northdale Construction Company has satisfactorily completed the 2018 Pavement Management Project, as per Contract No. 47-18. 2.The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3.The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract cost is $4,930,617.79. 4.The City Manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $67,109.65 on this contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Resolution authorizing the city’s participation in local performance measurement program Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the city’s participation in local performance measurement program. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to participate in the local performance measurement program for 2020? Summary: In 2010, the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation (CLRI) and charged the group with developing a voluntary performance measurement reporting program for Minnesota cities and counties. In order to participate in the program, each city or county must pass a resolution that confirms participation and implement a minimum of ten performance measures developed by the CLRI. All participants are required to file a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2020. The report must include a resolution declaring participation in the program and a report with a minimum of ten performance measures. The city began participation in 2018. Staff have developed the tools necessary to participate in the program for 2020. If the city’s participation is approved by the council, staff will submit the attached data for 2019 and the signed resolution to the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2020. In order to comply with the posting requirements, the data will be available to residents on the city’s website. Financial or budget considerations: A city or county that chooses to participate in the program is eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 cents per capita from the State. In addition, the city would also be exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in the following calendar year, if levy limits are in effect. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Report on Performance Measures for 2020 Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Page 2 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Resolution authorizing the city’s participation in local performance measurement program Resolution No. 20-____ Authorizing reporting requirements for the local performance measurement program Whereas, in 2010, the Minnesota Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation; and Whereas, the Council on Local Results and Innovation developed a standard set of performance measures that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficiency of cities in providing services and measure residents’ opinion of those services; and Whereas, benefits to the City of St. Louis Park are outlined in MS 6.91 and include eligibility for a reimbursement as set by State statute; and Whereas, any city/county participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program is also exempt from levy limits for taxes, if levy limits are in effect; and Whereas, the City Council of St. Louis Park has adopted and implemented at least 10 of the performance measures, as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation, and a system to use this information to help plan, budget, manage and evaluate programs and processes for optimal future outcomes; and Now therefore let it be resolved that, the City Council of St. Louis Park will report the results of the performance measures to its citizenry by the end of the year through publication, direct mailing, posting on the city’s/county’s website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed. Be it further resolved, the City Council of St. Louis Park will submit to the Office of the State Auditor the actual results of the performance measures adopted by the city. Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 15th day of June 2020. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk St. Louis Park • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2575 • Fax: 952.928.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Report on Performance Measures for 2019 City of St. Louis Park Category # Performance Measure Data General 1. Percent change in the taxable property market value 8.32% 2. Number of nuisance code enforcement cases per 1,000 population 8 3. Bond Rating AAA Police Service 4. Part I and II Crime Rates Part I: 1,331 Part II: 960 Fire & EMS Service 5. Insurance industry rating of fire services ISO 2 6. EMS calls per 1,000 population 70.4 Streets 7. Average city street pavement condition rating 62.4 8. Expenditures for road rehabilitation per paved lane mile rehabilitated (jurisdiction only roads) $742,912.42 9. Percentage of all jurisdiction lane miles rehabilitated in the year 2.90% Water 10. Operating costs per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped/produced $2,945.70 Page 3 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4f) Title: Resolution authorizing the city’s participation in local performance measurement program Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 1, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4g OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 20, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther, Mara Strand GUESTS: David Anderson, Frauenshuh, Inc; Jon Fahning, Bremer Bank; Jackie Miller, RSP Architects; Vicki VanDell, Loucks Associates 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2020 Commissioner Beneke made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Dumalag seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Bremer Bank Conditional Use Permit Applicant: David Anderson, Frauenshuh Case Nos: 20-07-CUP Ms. Kramer presented the report. The applicant, Mr. Anderson of Frauenshuh, is applying for a CUP to build Bremer Bank and drive- thru at 7924 Highway 7. The area is a little over an acre in size. The property is guided commercial use. The existing building would be removed and the bank built on the site. The CUP is requested to build the bank with two 24-hour drive-up ATMs. The plan meets the city’s vehicular, bicycle, and electric vehicle charging parking requirements. Traffic circulation was noted, with a possibility of modifying the proposed site plan to provide an entrance-only from 37th Street and two-way access to Texas Avenue, however Ms. Kramer noted there will be more discussion prior to going to city council to present. The bank will have a drive-thru teller window and drive-thru ATMs. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes May 20, 2020 Ms. Kramer reviewed the CUP requirements for 24-hour operations and in-vehicle sales in the C-1 district and general CUP requirements. The applicant held an online neighborhood meeting on May 13, 2020. Commissioner Erwin asked about the fence or high wall on the north side of the property. She asked if that is existing or new being proposed on the site. Ms. Kramer stated the design Commissioner Erwin referred to shows the reconstructed wall, built into the hill. The existing wall will be rebuilt, and a fence added per the building code. She added the lighting plan shows no spillover onto adjacent properties and was approved by city staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what the wall is made of, and also if it was a living wall, as it looked like vines are growing on it. Ms. Kramer stated the developer has proposed ivy and creeping greenery on the wall as part of the landscape plan. She stated the materials of the wall meets the city’s architectural material standards. Commissioner Eckholm asked how much traffic is anticipated moving from Knollwood to this new site, across the road. He stated this will be more of a direct cross, but he is concerned about the amount of traffic there, and with bike lanes and the future LRT station. He stated he wants to understand how traffic will impact the area. Ms. Kramer stated there has been no traffic studies on the changes to the site plan, but added this is something staff will look at before presenting to city council. Mr. Walther stated staff anticipate a reduction in overall trip traffic to the site. Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson stated this feels like a straightforward project with no red flags. He appreciated hearing the traffic will be reviewed a bit more, along with the cross traffic. Overall, it’s a handsome building and fits into the neighborhood well, and he is excited about it, and will fully support it. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, and Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded, recommending approval of the Bremer Bank CUP. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 4.Other Business – none City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes May 20, 2020 5.Communications Mr. Walther stated there will be a study session held following the Planning Commission meeting this evening. He noted the call-in number for the public to listen in on the meeting. He noted the link is also on the Planning Commission page on the city website, and folks can connect this way as well. 6.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:25 p.m. 1.Background on Wooddale Avenue light rail transit station area planning Mr. Walther stated there will be some general background information provided this evening, and a time for questions and answers. Ms. Kramer presented on the land use plan. Transit oriented development (TOD) is defined in the city’s comp plan and allows a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses along the TOD line. She noted residential is 85% of the land use in a TOD. Mr. Walther pointed out the priority areas in the 2040 comp plan, including the three LRT areas, which are the general area of focus and redevelopment. He noted south of 36th Street and east of Wooddale would have more intensive uses, according to the comp plan, and a large area is zoned for future office use. He added the comp plan also notes this area should be revisited in the future, and that the TOD land use allows for flexibility of uses in this area. Ms. Kramer presented the 2003 Elmwood land use and transit plan, which focuses on the area around the Wooddale LRT, and had much community engagement. She noted the 2003 Elmwood study looked at land use recommendations in the Elmwood neighborhood, establishing 36th Street as a main street. The study looked at commercial, industrial and residential uses in the area. She noted the plan also included development of Wooddale Avenue and the Hwy 7 frontage road, improvements to transit and bicycle connections. Mr. Walther stated some parts of this study have changed over time, as development of the area has changed. He noted storm water management changes were also reviewed as part of the study. Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Dumalag agreed it would be beneficial to see an overlay of the area as it was, as it is now, and as it might be after future development. Mr. Walther stated staff could provide this for future consideration. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 4 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes May 20, 2020 Chair Kraft asked if the plan prioritized certain elements, or if dictated more by proposed developments. She asked if there were priorities that came out of the study. Mr. Walther said the study focused on providing a framework to help make decisions as proposals came forward, while looking at the 2003 plan, the comp plan, and the area as it is currently, while considering current goals and policies as well. Commissioner Beneke asked about the bridge over Hwy 100. Mr. Walther stated until the bridge is part of the city’s capital improvement plan, it’s not real. At this point there has been no consideration of a bridge, but a connection to Wooddale was something that has been discussed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted a discussion and proposal from the past on Excelsior Blvd. Mr. Walther stated he is familiar with this study and it has been referenced over time. Ms. Monson discussed information about the 2009 Wooddale Station Area Plan, which was part of the visioning related to the LRT stations. She summarized the recommendations from the plan and noted that even though the 2009 plan recommended 4-story buildings along 36th Street, building codes have changed, and taller buildings have been allowed. Mr. Walther added that the plan was a technical review, and the scope and environmental review of the LRT stations were still in flux at the time. He noted that a park and ride was also being reviewed for the Wooddale Station in 2009, but it is no longer being considered. Ms. Monson reviewed parking trends within the city and best practices across the nation. She noted the city prioritizes pedestrians first, then bikes and transit, then motorized vehicles. Commissioner Dumalag noted previous plans and development approvals were made prior to the investment in LRT, but now as development is coming before the commission, parking will need to be adjusted accordingly. She asked if there is an interim plan related to parking in the city. Mr. Walther stated the city has required more parking than needed, along with a traffic or parking management plan that puts the onus on owners to come up with parking plans. He added how the city manages on-street parking in the next few years will be important. Commissioner Robertson asked if the city will look at allowing restaurants flexibility on outdoor seating in light of the Governor’s requirements due to COVID-19. Mr. Walther stated this is being reviewed and that staff is hoping to bring a policy forward to the council for review and approval to allow for expanded outdoor seating areas for a temporary time period, with social distancing. Commissioner Robertson asked about updates on the Galaxy Drive-In Restaurant. Ms. Kramer stated there have been no updates recently, although it looks like they are making some changes in the drive-up parking area. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Discussion item: 5a Executive summary Title: Appointment of representatives to boards and commissions Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to appoint representatives to the boards and commissions as listed in exhibit A. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to appoint the representatives listed in exhibit A to serve on the boards and commissions listed for the respective terms? Summary: The city received a great response from individuals interested in serving on a city board or commission. A total of 63 applications were received for open positions on the Community Technology Advisory Commission, Environment & Sustainability Commission, Housing Authority, Human Rights Commission, Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The city council evaluated all applications that were submitted. Interview panels, consisting of three council members and the board or commission chair (if available), conducted interviews and provided the recommendations in exhibit A. Because there are more applicants than positions available, not all candidates will be able to be appointed to a board or commission at this time. Applications for candidates not selected will be kept on file for the period of 1 year. Should additional positions become available during that time period the city council will attempt to fill the open positions from the already established candidate pool. Each of the individuals appointed by the city council will receive notification of their appointment and will participate in an orientation program with their staff liaison. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Exhibit A Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 5a) Page 2 Title: Appointment of representatives to boards and commissions Exhibit A Name Board/Commission Term Expiration Bridget Rathsack Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/23 Marisa Bayer Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/23 Paige Kane Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/23 Eric Zweber Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/22 Spencer Schaber Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/21 McKenna Taylor Environment and Sustainability Commission 5/31/21 Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Recommended actions: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 4 affirmative votes as Councilmember Mavity announced she will recuse herself); and •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Unity Village Apartments (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding resolutions 6996 and 87-135 relating to property located at 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 17 to the zoning code and amending the zoning map from R-3 two-family residence to PUD 17, and set the second reading for July 6, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) Policy consideration: Does the proposed redevelopment meet the city’s affordable housing and neighborhood development goals? Does council approve waiving the 2-acre minimum requirement for a planned unit development (PUD)? Summary: Project for Pride in Living (PPL) requests the city approvals listed above in order to construct a new 60-unit, three-story, 100% affordable apartment development on property located at 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue. As part of the developer’s request, council is asked to waive the 2-acre minimum requirement for a PUD. The planning commission held a public hearing on June 3, 2020, at which time a number of people testified both for and against the applications. The commission unanimously recommended approval of all applications. Financial or budget considerations: The developer applied for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance in the amount of $500,000 to defray a portion of its extraordinary expenses. Staff and Ehlers, the financial consultant for the economic development authority (EDA), will provide a staff report on the TIF application on June 20, 2020. Staff recommend collecting $118,500 in park dedication fees in-lieu of park land, and $17,775 in trail dedication fees. Strategic priority considerations: •St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. •St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; Comprehensive plan amendment resolution; Preliminary and final plat resolution; Resolution rescinding previous resolutions; PUD ordinance; Trip generation analysis; PPL letters; Project stakeholder analysis; LRT multifamily development summary; Public correspondence regarding the project; Unofficial planning commission minutes; Official exhibits Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Discussion Background: Union Congregational Church currently owns and operates the project site. The site is three blocks from the Wooddale Light Rail Transit Station that is currently under construction and will be completed in 2023. The church will sell a portion of their property to an affiliate of PPL; this affiliate would then own and manage this new housing for the long term. The northern portion of the existing church building, as well as the surface parking lot on the west side of the site, will be demolished in order to allow construction of the new apartment building. The church will use the proceeds from the land sale to renovate the existing sanctuary and narthex to preserve the 1940s church building while making it more welcoming and accommodating. Previous planning approvals: City council granted a zoning permit to construct the parking lot on 6027 West 37th street on October 19, 1981 (Resolution 6996). On September 21, 1987, city council granted a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 24 square foot sign at 3700 Alabama Avenue (Resolution 87-135). As part of the approval process, staff recommend city council rescind these resolutions if the applications are approved. Site map: Site area (acres): 1.77 Current use: church, daycare Surrounding land uses: North: industrial/warehouse West 37th Street Alabama Avenue Brunswick Avenue Oxford Street Existing church to remain Area to be redeveloped Existing narthex to be removed; rebuilt City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment East: multi-family residential, office South: single family residential West: single family residential Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning CIV - civic R-3 two-family residence Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning Apartment lot: RH - high density residential Church lot: CIV - civic PUD planned unit development Inclusionary housing policy. The redevelopment’s focus is to provide affordable housing for families, with units ranging from studios to three-bedrooms. It is proposed that all units in the building be affordable to households at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). The development will function as an income averaging development, in which the units would be considered affordable to households at incomes ranging from 30% AMI (or $30,000 for a household of 4) to 80% of AMI (or $80,000 for a household of 4), with a building average income of less than 60% AMI. This level of affordability exceeds the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements. Green building policy. The proposed Union Park Flats will comply with the city's green building policy by meeting SB2030 goals and following the Enterprise Green Communities Criteria ('GCC'). The project has a goal of obtaining over 105 points through the GCC, compared to 35 points for a typical GCC project. Some of the project's specific sustainable elements are explained below. • Reuse of a likely brownfield site (former parking lot with possible contamination and buried debris from decades-old demolition). • Access to bus and light transit at the Wooddale Avenue LRT Station approximately three blocks away. This frequent transit service reduces the need for single-occupancy vehicles and vehicle miles traveled to reduce vehicle emissions. • Access to bike lanes (i.e. along Alabama Avenue) and regional trails. • A new, advanced stormwater management system will replace the highly impervious parking lot that covers much of the site currently. Stormwater will be held on site for re- use in irrigation, preserving potable water for domestic use with a goal of 50% of irrigation needs covered by re-used stormwater. • The project will meet SB 2030 requirements. Exactly how the project will achieve the required performance standard will be determined through energy modeling and building design, but areas that will be considered as part of the energy design package will include: mechanical systems; electrical systems and controls; building envelope, including insulation, roof and windows. • Water Sense labeled toilets, showerheads, and faucets. • Low volatile organic compound and asthmagen-free interior finish materials. • Construction waste recycling. • The building has been sited to take advantage of a “high spot” along 37th Avenue for the primary first-floor building entrance, and a “low spot” along Alabama Avenue for the City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment vehicular access to lower-level parking. PPL has allowed for a low-slope garage entrance ramp that does not need to be heated for safety reasons - to melt winter snow and ice – which would save energy. • At a minimum, the project will be designed to be “solar ready.” If selected for funding by the Metropolitan Council's LCDA program, the project will also include a solar photovoltaic array. Present considerations. The applicant requests that the city: • Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map for 6027 37th Street West and a portion of 3700 Alabama Avenue South from CIV – civic to RH – high density residential. • Approve a preliminary and final plat to reconfigure two parcels for development. • Amend the zoning map and zoning ordinance to rezone the subject properties from R-3 two-family residence to PUD planned unit development. Comprehensive plan amendment. The applicant requests a change to the future land use designation of 6027 37th Street West and a portion of 3700 Alabama Avenue South from CIV – civic to RH – high density residential. Below is a map showing the area of interest from the comprehensive plan future land use map and proposed change. Existing and proposed future land use City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment A request for amending the city’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long-range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of 50 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment may be evaluated independently of the development proposal against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject properties. The amendment itself does not permit the proposed development but is one step in the approvals process. General consistency with the comprehensive plan. The city’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the comprehensive plan. Staff identified the following goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposed application: Livable Communities Goal 2: Promote building and site design that creates a connected, human scale, multimodal, and safe environment for people who live and work here. Strategies A. Encourage quality design in new construction such as building orientation, scale, massing, and pedestrian access. B. Encourage new buildings to orient to walkable streets with appropriate building height to street width ratios. Residential Land Use Goal 1: Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase housing choices, including affordable housing, and increase the viability of neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development. Strategies A. Engage the community to determine how to allow a broader range of housing types and densities within and adjacent to existing low-density residential neighborhoods that are complementary and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. B. Promote and support the development of medium and high-density residential land uses near commercial centers and nodes. C. Ensure that new and redeveloped medium and high-density residential land uses are located within walking distance of transit and commercial services. Land use goal 2: Preserve and enhance the livability and unique character of each neighborhood’s residential areas. Strategies C. Require the creation of appropriate and effective buffer or transition areas between different land use types. Housing Goal 1: The City of St. Louis Park will promote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse lifecycle housing choices suitable for households of all income levels including, but not limited to affordable, senior, multi- generational, supportive and mixed income housing, disbursed throughout the city. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Strategies A. Create a broad range of housing types to provide more diverse and creative housing choices to meet the needs of current and future residents. E. Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to assist in meeting housing goals. Housing Goal 3: The city is committed to promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations, including near transit centers, retail and employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts. Strategies B. Promote high-quality architectural design in the construction of new multi-family developments. D. Increase densities and housing options on high frequency transit routes and near rail stations. Housing Goal 4: The city is committed to creating, preserving and improving the city’s rental housing stock. Strategies B. Promote the inclusion of family-sized units (2 and 3 bedroom) in newly constructed multi- family developments. C. Minimize the involuntary displacement of people of color, indigenous people and vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, the elderly and people with disabilities from their communities as neighborhoods grow and change. Housing Goal 6: The city is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. Strategies A. Ensure affordable housing is disbursed throughout the city and not concentrated in any one area. B. Continue to support the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing. C. Promote the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments, including those located near the Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor and other transit nodes, retail and employment centers and commercial mixed-use districts. D. Pursue policies, tools and programs to ensure long-term housing affordability for households at or below 30, 50, 60 and 80% of AMI. Housing Goal 7: Preservation, Safety and Sustainability. The city is committed to ensuring all housing is safe and well maintained. Strategies C. Encourage the use of green building practices, energy-efficient products, and sustainable methods in both single-family and multi-family housing construction. D. Proactively address health hazards in housing and advance design that supports physical and mental health. E. Strengthen neighborhoods and neighborhood amenities to encourage residents to stay and reinvest in St. Louis Park. Historic Resources Goal 1. Inventory the city’s historic assets. Strategies City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment A. Create a plan to inventory key historic or architecturally significant buildings and features including: churches and synagogues, schools, residences of prominent citizens, distinctive residences by prominent architects or builders, distinctive commercial buildings, notable parks and public works elements and features. B. Conduct historical research and documentation on significant buildings and sites as they are being modified or demolished to keep as detailed of a historical record as possible. The original church building is preserved in this plan. The historic train depot located in Jorvig Park is listed on the national register of historic buildings. Staff find there is no indication that the proposed building would in any way jeopardize or harm the designation of the depot. The 2040 Land Use Plan envisions the Wooddale Avenue Station Area as a transit-oriented development (TOD) neighborhood, particularly south of the future transit line. The plan guided much of the land in the core of the station area to the new Transit Oriented Development land use designation. The goal of TOD designation is to create pedestrian-scale developments within a ten-minute walk of a transitway station. Beyond the immediate station area, the remaining land is primarily guided for medium- and high-density residential. The subject property is within the priority redevelopment area around the Wooddale LRT station. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes the city’s Livable Community Principles, which provide policy direction that allows mixed-use land use designations to achieve high residential densities. These principles include structured parking, affordable housing, sustainable site and building design elements, and high quality attractive indoor/outdoor recreation and amenity areas. RH high density residential is one of the land use designations the plan identifies as applicable to these principles. In addition to the above, the Land Use Plan also references the 2003 Elmwood land use, transit and transportation study. The subject property was just outside of the boundary of the study area. The study developed a thirty-year vision for the neighborhood and acts as a tool for guiding decisions on future redevelopment, infill development and infrastructure changes in the Elmwood area. The study area is generally bounded by Highway 7, Highway 100, Wooddale Avenue and Brunswick Avenue in southeast St. Louis Park. Recommendations in the 2003 study were based in part on 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Pechiney Plastics (now JonnyPops / Nordic Ware warehouse) was assumed to continue as an industrial use; should there be an opportunity to redevelop, medium-density residential use should be considered. Scale and building materials should complement the single-family neighborhood. The block east of the project site was recommended to be medium density on the north half of the block, and low density (townhomes) on the south half due to adjacent single-family homes. The plan also recommended potential and appropriateness of TOD on the site. It is less clear how the 2003 plan defined TOD, except that it promoted a walkable, urban village area. The parcel northeast of the subject property was recommended for high density residential. While the proposed project does not follow the 2003 study recommendations for adjacent parcels for medium and low-density land use guidance, staff find it does follow other principles in the 2003 plan. The architectural design includes building materials and colors that respect City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment and complement the nearby single-family homes including stone and brick in natural colors, rather than glass and metal. Staff find the proposed site plan provides sufficient buffer between the proposed apartment building and the existing single-family homes. The large setback that is consistent with the house to the south on Brunswick Avenue South gives greater space between the apartment building and the single-family houses to the west. The height of the building meets the current zoning district height maximum of the site, and staff find the proposed height to be compatible with nearby single family, multi-family, and nonresidential buildings. The desire for move-up housing is in part a desire for more family housing. 88% of the units in the proposed development are two and three bedrooms, which is an excellent opportunity to increase the stock of family housing in the neighborhood. Availability of infrastructure. City engineering and operations staff have reviewed the proposed development and found the existing water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. The applicant must obtain both city and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits prior to construction. Traffic: The city hired SRF Consulting Group to conduct a trip generation review of the proposed project. At the time the study was conducted, the applicant proposed 80 dwelling units on the site. SRF’s analysis concluded the earlier 80-unit project would generate 43 more daily trips to and from the site compared to the current uses. These new site trips would be more spread out throughout the day, rather than concentrated during morning and afternoon peak hours like the current daycare use on the site. The current proposal of 60 dwelling units will generate even fewer trips to and from the site than shown in the analysis. City staff find the development to have no impact to the transportation network and no changes will be necessary to the surrounding street network. Please see the attached trip generation analysis memo for further details. Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood. Removal of the existing building and redevelopment of the north parcel will change the character of the property. The area around the project site includes a variety of land uses, including single family houses and duplexes to the west and south; multi-family homes to the east; and industrial/warehouse use to the north. Staff find the proposed three-story building to be compatible with these nearby uses in land use and building height. The proposed use is more residential in character than the group daycare and surface parking lot uses present today. This development is also similar in scale to mixed-use and transit-oriented development around the Wooddale LRT station, yet meets the height requirements of the present R-3 zoning district. Staff find the proposed building materials reflect the existing architectural character of the neighborhood, while not attempting to replicate the same historical style. The yard on the west end of the property matches that of the house to the south and provides a landscaped space respectful of the rest of the block and park use to the northwest. Staff find the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the apartment site to high density residential would bring the site into alignment with land use guidance around the Wooddale LRT station. The proposal creates a pedestrian-scaled development within a ten- minute walk of the Wooddale LRT Station area. Staff also find the project meets these Livable City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Communities principles in the 2040 plan: structured parking, affordable housing, high quality outdoor recreation and amenity areas. Staff find the proposed increase in housing density would allow redevelopment that supports livable communities, land use, housing and historic resource goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed apartment building supports a walkable street while providing a buffer between the existing single-family homes and future higher-intensity development around the Wooddale LRT station. The proposed apartment building includes high quality architecture and landscape design and provides several sustainability features. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment would also allow infill redevelopment that provides long-term affordable family housing near a transit node. The proposed redevelopment on an underutilized nonresidential parcel minimizes the involuntary displacement of vulnerable Staff finds the above listed goals, strategies and policies of the comprehensive plan support re- guiding this property to RH high density residential. Preliminary and final plat analysis. the applicant seeks preliminary and final plat approval to create two new parcels from two existing parcels. Lots: The subdivision would create two new lots: • Lot 1, Block 1: 51,713 square feet. This lot would contain the new apartment building. • Lot 2, Block 1: 25,330 square feet. This lot would contain the existing church. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are provided along all property lines as per the requirements of the city’s subdivision ordinance. All easements abutting city right-of-way are ten feet in width, and easements provided along all internal property lines are five feet in width. Alley and neighboring property access: An existing alley provides access to two single-family residential lots south and west of the project site to Brunswick Avenue South. No change is proposed to the alley and the single-family properties will maintain access to Brunswick. The church property includes a surface parking lot that encroaches upon the north-south portion of the alley; the paved lot has been on the site since at least 1962. Functionally, access to the east- west alley from Brunswick Avenue to Oxford Street occurs through the drive aisle of the parking lot which is not aligned with the alley right-of-way. Staff recommend a condition of approval attached to the plat application that requires formalization and documentation of current conditions to maintain permanent public access to the alley. This would include an encroachment agreement for the parking spaces and a public access agreement across the drive lane of the church’s parking lot. No physical changes would be required since the public interest in maintaining functional access to the alley would be maintained. The agreement could also address the church’s financial responsibilities to return the alley to its original location if it is needed in the future by the city. Access and site circulation: The structured parking underneath the apartment building will be accessed from Alabama Avenue South. The surface parking lot south of the apartment building will be accessed from the existing alley, which connects to Brunswick Avenue South and Oxford Street West through the church parking lot. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment The main pedestrian entrance to the apartment building is located on 37th Street West, with secondary building entrances on either side of the interior courtyard. Ground-floor units have direct access to the exterior through private patios. Sidewalks: The city’s subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks along all streets. Existing sidewalk along all three street frontages (Brunswick Avenue South, 37th Street West, and Alabama Avenue South) shall be preserved or reconstructed as part of this development. Park and trail dedication: In response to the pandemic, Governor’s Order 20-20 and city council Resolution 20-066, the parks and recreation advisory commission did not hold a meeting and make a recommendation to the city council regarding park dedication for the current application. Based on Resolution 20-066 and the city’s desire to provide efficient and ongoing services, city staff recommended the city council adopt city staff’s recommendation regarding park dedication. No new parks are designated for this area in the comprehensive plan; therefore, cash-in-lieu of land is recommended by staff. The 2020 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication fee at $1,500 per dwelling unit and the residential trail dedication fee at $225 per dwelling units. Park dedication fees for non-residential properties are set at 5% of the current market value of the unimproved land as determined by the city assessor. Staff recommend collecting $90,000 in park dedication fees and $13,500 in trail dedication fees for the apartment parcel, and $12,607.32 in park dedication fees for the church parcel. Staff find the preliminary and final plat meet city requirements. PUD analysis. The developer requests approval of a preliminary and final planned unit development (PUD). A PUD is a rezoning (zoning map amendment) and zoning text amendment that establish the regulations for a specific property. The proposed land use guidance would allow the density of 50 units per acre on the apartment lot requested by the applicant. Approval of the PUD will be contingent upon approval of the comprehensive plan amendment request. The site does not currently meet the 2-acre minimum for a PUD request. The city council may waive this requirement. The city council reviewed a concept plan for the development on January 13, 2020. While no action was taken on the concept plan at that time, council input to staff was that they would consider a waiver. Staff support the use of a PUD zoning for this property as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual site and advances the city’s affordable housing and green building goals. Below is a map showing the area of interest from the city zoning map and proposed change. Existing and proposed zoning City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Building and site design analysis. Staff find the proposed development meets the PUD ordinance goals for building and site design. The ordinance requires the city to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. Staff find the plan meets this requirement. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. Based on the analysis described in the comprehensive plan amendment section of this report, staff find the proposed three-story building and multi-family residential use to be compatible with surrounding uses, and the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding land uses has been minimized by the site design and the current proposed size of the project. Staff find this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This criteria will be met. The project will comply with the city’s green building policy as well as achieve over 100 optional points through the Enterprise Green Communities program. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The development does not propose green roof or white roofs. While this is encouraged; it is not required. The building will meet the city’s green building policy. (5) A PUD shall comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The applicant proposes a 100% affordable housing project with a range of affordability from 30% to 80% AMI. This proposal meets and exceeds the requirements of the inclusionary housing policy. This criteria will be met. Zoning analysis. The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a PUD. The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning compliance table Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Set by PUD Lot 1: residential Lot 2: civic Yes Density High density land use: 75 units/acre 50 units/acre Yes Lot area 2.0 acres minimum 1.77 Pending council approval Sidewalks Required along all street frontages Provided along all street frontages Yes Setbacks – apartment lot Set by PUD Alabama (front): 15.08’ Brunswick (front): 32.42’ 37th (side street): 14.75’ south (interior side): 12.08’ Yes Setbacks – church lot Set by PUD Oxford (front): 26.5’ Alabama (side street): 32.58’ west (interior side): 56.67’ north (rear): 5’ Yes Height Set by PUD 3 stories / 33.46’ Yes Building materials Minimum of 60% Class 1 materials on each building elevation Minimum of 60% Class 1 materials provided on each building elevation: brick, stone, glass, stucco Yes Vehicular parking Apartment: 120 Church: 49 Apartment: 90 Church: 36 (no change) Yes; see below Bicycle parking Apartment: 72 Church: 5 Apartment: 108 Church: 5 Yes Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) Level 1: 9 Level 2: 2 Conduit: 9 spaces Level 1: 9 Level 2: 2 Conduit: 14 spaces Yes Open area/DORA Set by PUD Apartment: 14.23% Church: no change Yes City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Factor Required Proposed Met? Landscaping Apartment parcel: 60 trees, 300 shrubs Apartment: 79 trees, 652 shrubs, additional perennial and grass plantings Church: no change Yes Tree replacement 14.25 caliper inches 15 caliper inches Yes Refuse handling Full screening required; compliance with city’s Solid Waste ordinance required Plan will comply with all solid waste handling and screening requirements Yes Transit service None required Site is ¼ mile from future Wooddale LRT station; Bus route 17 Yes Stormwater management Meet city and state requirements Site will meet requirements Yes Uses: The Union Park Flats PUD zoning district would include two parcels. Parcel 2 contains the existing church, and no changes are proposed to the use on this lot. Parcel 1 is a multi-family apartment building with the following unit breakdown: Unit Type Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Studio 3 3 One bedroom 12 12 Two bedroom 30 60 Three bedroom 15 45 Total 60 120 Vehicular parking (apartment): One component of providing a well-connected transit village is right-sizing the parking requirements. Requiring parking above and beyond what is needed for a transit-oriented development has unintended consequences of reducing the walkability of an area by underutilizing space, places a higher cost on construction which may be then passed on to tenants, and causes the development to be designed around parking rather than designed for people. St. Louis Park has not amended the parking ordinance to allow for greater reductions of parking for developments near SWLRT, though an amendment to the code is anticipated prior to the opening of the light rail in 2023. In the meantime, the city is looking at the parking required within transit-oriented districts on a project-by-project basis. The code allows for parking quantity requirements to be revised upward or downward by city council as part of a planned unit development based on verifiable information pertaining to parking. In addition, the ordinance allows for parking reductions based on shared parking and available on-street parking adjacent to the property. The city has been conservative in our approach to reducing parking for residential uses. Staff analysis and logic to the parking analysis for this development is described below. Three-bedroom units, particularly in an affordable housing development such as this, typically rent to families, rather than adult roommates who may potentially each own a vehicle. Thus, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment staff find it appropriate to reduce the parking requirements for three-bedroom units from three spaces to two. PPL stated previous projects in the Twin cities typically have a 1:1 ratio between apartment units and on-site parking because their moderate- and lower-income households tend not to own many cars. The recent Oxford Village development along Blake Road in Hopkins includes 51 dwelling units and 61 parking spaces, for a ratio of 1:1.2 units to parking spaces. Oxford Village shares several similarities to this proposed development in terms of unit types and suburban, transit-oriented location, and city staff from Hopkins that worked on the development indicated the parking is working well. While the current zoning code does not allow transit reductions for multi-family development, this language was prepared at a time when the only transit service available to the city was bus service, rather than light rail service, which creates a greater influence on reducing parking demand than bus stops alone. If approved, this project would open around the same time as the Wooddale LRT station. Thus, staff recommend a modal reduction for proximity to a future LRT station. Based on current best practices regarding parking in transit-oriented development, parking requirements for existing and approved development projects around LRT stations in St. Louis Park, and analysis of this proposal, staff recommend a parking reduction of 25% for the proposed apartment building. The proposed apartment site plan includes 69 parking stalls in one underground structured parking level, and 10 spaces in a surface parking lot south of the building. Eleven on-street parking spaces on Brunswick Avenue South and Alabama Avenue South are adjacent to the site, and thus allow for a one to one reduction in off-street parking, or essentially included in the parking for the site for a total of 90 parking stalls, or 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This ratio of parking stalls to dwelling units is similar to most of the recent developments around the Wooddale LRT station. PPL and Union Congregational Church are exploring a potential shared parking agreement to allow apartment visitors to use select parking stalls on the church surface lot. The final format of this agreement, including the question of permanency, has not been finalize at this time, so staff have not included these parking spaces in the apartment building parking counts. City code allows up to 20% of required parking to be compact stalls. The site plan includes 10 (12.7%) of the stalls to be compact. Vehicular parking (church): At the completion of the apartment building construction, the church parcel will have 31 parking spaces in a surface parking lot west of the building. Five off- street parking spaces on Alabama Avenue are adjacent to the parcel and thus available for inclusion in parking provided on site, for a total of 36 parking spaces. Union Congregational Church has an informal (i.e. not a permanent easement) agreement with Luther Company (3701 Alabama Avenue South) to use 15 parking stalls on their property during worship service. Because this agreement is not a permanent legal condition on the property, these 15 spaces cannot be included in the required parking counts. However, staff recommend granting a parking requirement reduction for the church site based on the site’s proximity to City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment the Wooddale LRT station and the current under-utilization of the north surface parking lot to be included in the apartment redevelopment. The agreement with Luther is an appropriate and efficient shared parking arrangement; it is a bonus to the development and will for the term of the agreement reduce the demand for on-street parking generated by the church. Public engagement process. All property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development were notified by mail of both neighborhood meetings, the final revisions to the project to be submitted to planning commission for review, and the public hearing. Legal notices were published in the official newspaper regarding the public hearing. Information was shared through NextDoor and the city website. A “proposed development” sign with contact information was posted on the property. Notifications regarding the proposal met State Statute and city code requirements and included additional efforts beyond those minimum requirements. Large neighborhood meetings: The developer held two large neighborhood meetings on January 7, 2020 and March 10, 2020. The first meeting had approximately 50 attendees and the second meeting had approximately 125 attendees. Below is a brief summary of issues raised at these meetings: • Engagement process with the neighborhood o Criticism that communication from the church was insufficient o Criticism that neighborhood involvement in initial design process and developer selection was insufficient o Perception that decisions on the project were being made without sufficient public input • Proposed height of the apartment building (at the time of the second neighborhood meeting, the apartment was four stories tall). Some residents felt a two-story building was the maximum acceptable height at this site. Other residents pointed out that previous church leaders 17 years ago opposed a proposed tall building near the current site. • Housing density of project. Some residents felt no more than 20 units per acre would be appropriate on the site. • Affordability levels (both for and against proposed levels) • Support for more affordable housing in the neighborhood, including positive racial equity impacts • Effects of concentration of affordable housing units in one site • Architectural character of the apartment building not compatible with the character of the existing single-family and duplex neighborhood • Concern regarding setting a precedent for additional higher density development in the neighborhood • Concern regarding the proposed project’s conformance with previous planning studies and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan • Support for the project based on its potential to meet the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan • Building shadow impacts on adjacent properties • Proposed development’s impact on surrounding property values • Traffic impacts to the neighborhood • Spillover parking from the site into neighboring streets City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment • Crime and safety concerns around affordable housing developments • Concerns/questions regarding other potential developments in the area • Concern around PPL’s management of other sites in the area Small neighborhood group meetings: City staff, PPL and church leaders met a few times with a small group of neighborhood leaders over the course of the project. All of these meetings were held via web conference due to the current health pandemic. This neighborhood leaders group shared their guiding principles for the Elmwood neighborhood and their areas of concern and priority. These are shared in the public correspondence exhibits attached to this report. Additional public feedback: All letters and emails staff have received are attached to this report in chronological order. Please note that some of the emails refer to earlier versions of the project, and some residents submitted multiple comments on the project. In general, staff received similar public feedback via email and letters as what residents expressed during the large and small neighborhood meetings. Applicant response to neighborhood feedback: The development team has modified their proposal several times in response to neighborhood and city input to better address the goals of the comprehensive plan, the 2003 study and the feedback received from the neighborhood through this process. The table below contains a summary of the revisions the project has undergone throughout the city approval process. Date Number of units Number of bedrooms Parking spaces Building height January 13, 2020 (city council study session) 81 175 75 4 stories March 2, 2020 (formal applications) 80 160 81 + 10 spaces shown as proof of parking 4 stories, with 3 story massing along New Brunswick April 24, 2020 68 136 90 4 stories, with 2-3 stories along New Brunswick Current proposal 60 120 90 3 stories (meets R-3 height requirements) PPL has submitted letters to neighborhood leaders, city staff, and all property owners within 500 feet of the project site explaining their rationale for the current project size. Please see the attached PPL correspondence. In addition, a church representative submitted a stakeholder analysis for the project and a summary of development that has occurred along the Blue and Green LRT lines. Both documents are attached to this report. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Public hearing. Planning commission held a public hearing via videoconference on June 3, 2020. About 23 people gave testimony via telephone, both in support and opposed to the project for similar reasons given in the large and small neighborhood meetings. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of all applications. Recommendations. Planning commission and city staff recommend: Approval of the Union Park Flats Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing future land use designation of the property from civic (CIV) to high density residential (RH). Approval of Unity Village Apartments preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. Approval of the resolution rescinding previous approvals on 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue. Approval of the Union Park Flats preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the following conditions, which would be incorporated in the planning development agreement: 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential, subject to Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the city's assent form and the official exhibits. b. A planning development contract shall be executed between the developer and city that addresses, at a minimum: i. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. ii. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to, boulevard trees, sidewalks and boulevards. iii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), and the private site landscaping. iv. A private use of public land encroachment and permanent agreement for public use/access of the north-south portion of the alley. v. The developer shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. i. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute said planning development contract. c. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the city engineer for review and approval. d. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All city noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The city shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the city engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 5. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 6. A sign permit shall be submitted for city approval if new signage is proposed on the site. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. 7. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. Rooftop equipment may be located as indicated in the Official Exhibits so as not to be visible from off-site. 8. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Next steps. If approved, the city council would hold a second reading of the PUD ordinance on July 6, 2020. Staff and the EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers, will bring a recommendation to the EDA on June 20, 2020. The comprehensive plan amendment would be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and authorization to place the plan amendment into effect. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution supporting the approval of an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 for the property located at 3700 Alabama Avenue and 6027 West 37th Street Whereas, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2019; and Whereas, the use of said Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and Whereas, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and Whereas, said Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government; and Whereas, said Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of an amendment to said Plan on June 3, 2020; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 20-03-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; and Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of St. Louis Park that said Plan, as previously adopted by the City Council, is hereby amended as follows and as shown in the attached exhibits: Change the future land use designation for the property at 3700 Alabama Avenue (PID: 16-117-21-33-0012) and 6027 37th Street West (PID: 16-117-21-33-0090) from CIV – Civic to RH – High Density Residential, and Changes to the text, tables and figures within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan document as shown in the attachments to reflect updates to city forecasts and development phasing based on the change in land use; changes within the document are found on the following pages: 5-126 and 5-129. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Be it further resolved, City staff are instructed to submit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review and authorization to place the Comprehensive Plan Amendment into effect. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 21 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 5-126: Figure 5-5. 2040 Future Land Use Plan City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 22 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 5-129: Table 5.2 2040 Future Land Use Plan Future Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres % Net RL - Low Density Residential 2,520.67 2,484.21 35.96% RM - Medium Density Residential 400.25 383.99 5.56% RH – High Density Residential 216.21 217.40 207.57 208.76 3.00% 3.02% MX - Mixed Use 21.58 21.58 0.31% TOD - Transit Oriented Development 81.76 81.76 1.18% COM - Commercial 277.97 277.64 4.02% OFC - Office 231.99 214.84 3.11% BP - Business Park 103.81 103.65 1.50% IND - Industrial 244.41 206.23 2.99% CIV - Civic 216.29 215.1 210.70 209.51 3.05% 3.03% PRK - Park and Open Space 916.67 557.54 8.07% ROW - Right of Way 1,517.14 1,508.78 21.84% RRR - Railroad 159.98 150.81 2.18% Water/Wetlands - 499.45 7.23% Total 6,908.74 6,908.74 100.00% City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 23 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Unity Village Apartments 3700 Alabama Avenue and 6027 West 37th Street Whereas, Project for Pride in Living, owner of land proposed to be platted as Unity Village Apartments has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly thereunder; and Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto; Whereas, legal notice was published in the official newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing regarding the application; Whereas, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 3, 2020, and the commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the application with conditions; Whereas, City Code section 26-158(c) requires the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding accepting cash- in-lieu of land for park dedication. In response to the pandemic, Governor’s Order 20-20 and City Council Resolution 20-066, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission did not hold a meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding park dedication for the current application. Based on Resolution 20-066 and the City’s desire to provide efficient and ongoing services, city staff recommended the City Council adopt city staff’s recommendation regarding park dedication; Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Unity Village Apartments is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1.City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to high density residential and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2.The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits, and city code. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 24 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 3. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. 4. Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the city to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. b. A planning development contract shall be executed between the city and developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to, sidewalks and boulevards. ii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iii. A private use of public land encroachment and permanent agreement for public use/access of the north-south portion of the alley. iv. The applicant shall reimburse city attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. v. The mayor and city manager are authorized to execute the planning development contract. c. Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $90,000 and trail dedication fee of $13,500 for residential uses. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. The city’s assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 25 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment e. All necessary permits shall be obtained. f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements and landscaping. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 26 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1: Lots 17 to 21 inclusive and Lots 24 to 30 inclusive, Block 48, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Subject to alleys per document number 2692744. (Abstract) and Lots 5 and 6, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) Parcel 2: Lot 7, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Abstract) and Lot 8, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) and Lots 9 and 10, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 27 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Resolution No. 20-____ A resolution rescinding Resolutions 6996 and 87-135 relating to special permits for property located at 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue Whereas, on March 2, 2020 Abbie Loosen on behalf of Project for Pride in Living (PPL) filed an application seeking a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), which requires zoning map and zoning text amendments to create a new PUD that replaces the existing resolutions regulating the property at 6027 West 37th Street and 3700 Alabama Avenue and legally described in Exhibit “A” (“Subject Property”); and Whereas, St. Louis Park City Council Resolution 6996 granted a special permit for construction of a parking lot to the Subject Property on October 19, 1981 (Case No. 81-96-SP); and Whereas, St. Louis Park City Council Resolution 87-135 granted a special use permit for a 24 square foot freestanding sign to the subject property on September 21, 1987 (Case No. 87- 63-SP) Whereas, notice of a public hearing on the PUD was mailed to all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property; and Whereas, on June 3, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval of the PUD; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the staff report on the proposed PUD including comments and exhibits; Now therefore be it resolved that Resolutions 6996 and 87-135 are hereby rescinded upon the effective date of Ordinance No. _______ as the buildings and uses for which they were approved will cease and be replaced with a new use and development on the property. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020. Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 28 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1: Lots 17 to 21 inclusive and Lots 24 to 30 inclusive, Block 48, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Subject to alleys per document number 2692744. (Abstract) and Lots 5 and 6, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) Parcel 2: Lot 7, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Abstract) and Lot 8, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) and Lots 9 and 10, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 29 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Ordinance No. ___-20 Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park City Code relating to zoning by creating Section 36-268-PUD 17 as a Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the property located at 3700 Alabama Avenue South and 6027 37th Street West The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (Case No. 20-05-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 17. Section 2. Section 2. The city council voted on June 15, 2020, to approve Resolution No. _____ amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation for the subject properties located at 3700 Alabama Avenue South and 6027 37th Street West from Civic to High Density Residential. Said comprehensive plan amendment is associated with this ordinance and requires Metropolitan Council review and authorization to put it into effect. Section 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from R-3 Two-Family Residence to PUD 17: Parcel 1: Lots 17 to 21 inclusive and Lots 24 to 30 inclusive, Block 48, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Subject to alleys per document number 2692744. (Abstract) and Lots 5 and 6, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) Parcel 2: Lot 7, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Abstract) and Lot 8, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) and Lots 9 and 10, Block 48, "St. Louis Park Centre". (Torrens) Section 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Section 26-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 17. (a)Development Plan. The site located on property legally described above, shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1.G001 Title Sheet 2.AL101 Architectural Site Plan 3.AL102 Architectural Context Plan 4.AL103 Shadow Study 5.AL104 Block Elevation Study City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 30 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 6. Existing Conditions Survey 7. Lot Division Survey 8. Preliminary Plat 9. Final Plat 10. C100 Selective Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan 11. C200 Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan 12. C300 Utility Plan 13. C400 Paving and Geometric Plan 14. C500 Civil Details 15. C501 Civil Details 16. C600 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 17. L010 General Notes & Schedules 18. L011 Reference Note & Plant Schedules 19. L012 Tree Preservation Plan 20. L110 Overall Site Plan 21. L111 Enlarged Site Plan – Courtyard 22. L120 Overall Site Plan – DORA Exhibit 23. L140 Overall Tree Plan 24. L141 Overall Shrub & Perennial Plan 25. L142 Enlarged Landscape Plan – Courtyard 26. L500 Landscape Details 27. L501 Landscape Details 28. E0.00 Electrical Site Lighting Plan 29. A001.0 Sublevel 1 – Overall Plan 30. A101.0 Level 1 Plan – Overall 31. A102.0 Level 2 Plan – Overall 32. A103.0 – Level 3 Plan – Overall 33. A201 Roof Plan – Overall 34. A301 Building Elevations 35. A302 Building Elevations 36. A303 Building Elevations 37. A304 Building Elevations 38. PUD A1 Church Concept Models 39. PUD A2 Church Demolition Plan 40. PUD A3 Church Plan 41. PUPD A4 Church Building Elevations The site plan shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street. a. A total of 69 parking spaces shall be provided in structured parking. b. A total of 10 parking spaces shall be provided in the Parcel 1 surface lot. c. A total of 31 parking spaces shall be provided in the Parcel 2 parking lot. 2. Parcel 1 shall be developed with 60 residential units. 3. The maximum height of both parcels shall not exceed 35 feet. 4. Parcel 1 shall contain a minimum of 14% designed outdoor recreation area. (b) Permitted Uses. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 31 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment 1. The following uses are permitted uses on Parcel 1: a. Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including but not limited to fitness facility, mail room, assembly room or general amenity space. 2. The following uses are permitted uses on Parcel 2: a. Religious institutions. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory utility structures including: a. Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. b. Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. c. Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. 2. Decorative landscape features including but not limited to pools, arbors and terraces. 3. Family day care serving 14 or fewer persons. 4. Gardening and other horticultural uses. 5. Private garages and parking lots. 6. Property management or rental office provided it does not occupy more than ten percent of the gross floor area. 7. Public transit stops/shelters. 8. Service and retail facilities intended for use of residents not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the development. 9. Outdoor seating, public address (PA) systems are prohibited. 10. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 11. Home occupations are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: a. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. b. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right-of-way. c. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. d. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. e. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. f. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. g. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 32 Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment h. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. i. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. j. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. (d) Special Performance Standards a. All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking, and screening requirements. b. All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. c. Signage shall be in conformance with the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence Zoning District and shall comply with the following: 1. Pylon signs shall be prohibited. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council authorization of the associated comprehensive plan amendment approved by City Council Resolution _____ and not sooner than 10 days after publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading June 15, 2020 Second reading July 6, 2020 Date of publication July 16, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect Upon Metropolitan Council authorization of the associated comprehensive plan amendment and no sooner than July 26, 2020. Memorandum 1 CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM SRF No. 13358.00 To: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Brent Clark, PE, Senior Engineer Date: March 9, 2020 Subject: Union Congregational Church Trip Generation Review Introduction SRF has completed a trip generation review for the proposed residential redevelopment of a portion of the Union Congregational Church located in the southwest quadrant of the 37th Street West and Alabama Avenue intersection in St. Louis Park, MN. The main objectives of this review are to compare the current site trip generation to the proposed redevelopment plan using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 10th Edition, as well as land use, employment, and student data provided by the church. The following sections provide the assumptions, analysis, and study conclusions offered for consideration. Land Use Assumptions The existing site is generally bounded by 37th Street to the north, Brunswick Avenue to the west, Oxford Street to the south, and Alabama Avenue to the east. The existing land use consists of a church, narthex, and approximately 13,000 square feet (sf) of general space within a two-story building. The two-story building consists of a 5,000 sf daycare, while the rest of the building was assumed to be vacant. The existing daycare has 21 employees who serve approximately 85 children and the church has six (6) employees that work at various times of the day. The proposed redevelopment, which is shown in Figure 1, consists of a four-story 80-unit affordable housing building. As part of the redevelopment, the parking lot in the northwest quadrant and the two-story building will be demolished (the daycare will be relocated off-site). The existing church will remain, while the narthex will be reconstructed. Trip Generation To understand traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, a trip generation comparison was completed for both the existing and proposed land uses for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (generally an hour between 6-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) and a daily basis. These estimates, shown in Table 1, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition, as well as data provided by the church. Note that trip generation estimates were not developed for the church under existing or future conditions. Based on the church’s office hours and amount of employees (six), the number of peak hour trips generated by the church is expected to be minimal. In addition, it was assumed that most church events that occur on weekdays generally take place after typical p.m. peak hour periods. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 33 NORTHNorth02013558 March 2020 Site Plan Figure 1H:\Projects\13000\13558\TraffStudy\Figures\Fig01_Site Plan.cdrUnion Congregational Church Trip Generation Review City of St. Louis Park City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 34 Union Congregational Church Trip Generation Review March 9, 2020 Page 3 Table 1. Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Existing Land Use Day Care Center (565) 85 Children 35 31 32 36 348 Proposed Land Use Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (221) 80 DU 7 21 21 14 435 Modal Reduction (10%) (-1) (-2) (-2) (-1) (-44) Total Site Trips 6 19 19 13 391 Existing Site Trip Reduction (-35) (-31) (-32) (-36) (-348) Net New Site Trips -29 -12 -13 -23 43 Note that a 10 percent modal reduction was applied to the proposed redevelopment trip generation estimate to account for available and planned transit options in the study area (Metro Transit Route 17/615 and future Green Line LRT). Accounting for the modal reductions, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of approximately 25 a.m. peak hour, 32 p.m. peak hour, and 391 daily trips. To determine the approximate net change in overall site trips, the existing daycare center trips were subtracted from the proposed redevelopment site trips. Taking into account the existing site trip reduction, the proposed redevelopment is expected to generate approximately 41 less a.m. peak hour, 36 less p.m. peak hour, and 43 more daily site trips. H:\Projects\13000\13558\TraffStudy\Reports\Report\13558_UnionCongregationalTripGenReview_200309.docx City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 35 April 23, 2020 Dear Members of the Elmwood Neighborhood Housing Group: It is with some regret that we are writing to inform you that we will be proceeding through the City’s process with the project we have most recently presented to you. It is always our desire to work with the surrounding community in order to create an outcome that is acceptable to most if not all. However, in this instance, it has become clear that we are starting from very different points; the neighborhood’s density expectation has been set by the 2003 land use study and our expectation is based on the current general approach to transit-oriented sites, and the Metropolitan Council’s density guidance for sites within LRT station areas (see https://metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/LAND-USE/Density-and- Activity-Near-Transit.aspx, and https://www.stlouispark.org/home/showdocument?id=15304, particularly the map on page 23.) We had hoped that the changes we made – lowering the bedroom count, shrinking the building’s footprint, pulling the building back from Brunswick to create more distance between it and the adjacent houses, changing the design to reduce the scale of the western end of the building, moving to a pitched roof and more residential scale detailing, and reducing the size and height of the building by reducing the unit count by twelve- would make the building acceptable to you. However, from our last discussion, it is clear that these changes are insufficient. During our discussion, two general questions at the heart of the issue arose which are complicated and I do not feel that we answered in an adequate fashion. The first is, why does the project need to be of a certain size? Can’t it be smaller? How small can it be and still be economically viable? As many of you probably already understand, part of the answer to this lies in the nature of multi-family real estate. The most efficient apartment buildings, whether market-rate or affordable, are four or five story double-loaded corridors with surface parking. If a building exceeds five stories, it can no longer be built with standard wood framing, which is considerably cheaper than concrete or steel. There are certain fixed costs which are associated with a building regardless of its height: the cost of the site, the utility hook-ups, the foundation and excavation, and the roof. These items will vary only slightly with the addition of floors, so the cost of individual units on a third or fourth floor is relatively cheap and reduces the share of the fixed costs each unit must bear. Keeping the cost of units down and the rents up allows for the return on their investment which profit-motivated developers are seeking and is why, as you’ve likely observed, they will resist making a particular project smaller or shorter. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 36 At some point, the difference between the market rents and the cost of the units no longer provides an adequate return to the profit-motivated developer and/or investor, and the project no longer “pencils out” and doesn’t go forward. Clearly you understand this dynamic and your question as to how few units will we need to build in order to reach the desired return on investment makes perfect sense in this context. If economics were the only consideration, that calculation would be pretty straightforward and that question would be easy to answer. However, and this is the second part of the answer, our financing is only driven in part by economic considerations. In fact, most of the 25 factors on which our projects are evaluated run counter to typical economics. For example, in this project we are building family units with three bedrooms. These are unusual in the market because the additional square footage cost doesn’t generally command the higher rent needed to create the typical return on investment. As another example, we agree to keep our rents affordable to lower income households (or, in this case, a range of household incomes, including those on the lower end) for forty years, and we further agree to rent only to households below those income thresholds. Obviously, these types of restrictions don’t make sense in the usual maximizing the return on investment universe. However, that being said, Minnesota Housing (the primary agency providing financing for the development of affordable housing), being vigilant stewards of our tax dollars, cares deeply about project costs. They want projects which provide for the lowest income residents, have rental subsidy, have major sources of financing other than themselves, meet or exceed Minnesota’s Green Communities standards, are built with labor being paid the prevailing (union) wages, are non-smoking, fully accessible buildings, AND are low cost. To reinforce this desire for lower costs, projects applying for funds are awarded additional points for cost containment and are eliminated altogether if they exceed a certain cost threshold. To make this a bit more murky, neither of these numbers is established or stated at the time of application. The cost containment points are awarded to the cheapest half of the projects on a per unit basis within project type (i.e. family projects compete with family projects, projects in the metro area compete with projects in the metro area, etc.). This can lead to a race to the bottom in terms of quality which PPL, as an agency, avoids, because we feel that the long term consequences of pursuing a lowest initial first cost are not worth the additional score or the long- term impact on building quality and durability. To date we have only gotten cost containment points on one project. Generally, we are able to meet the financing thresholds through a combination of other “non-economic” factors. However, on two occasions, we have exceeded the absolute threshold and have had projects, which scored very well on other criteria, rejected for reasons of cost. The absolute number is not stated and is dictated by Minnesota Housing or City staff to allow for some flexibility and judgment in this area while attending to the costs of similar projects. So, our general approach is not to be the cheapest project, but to be enough under the threshold to be able to attract financing. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 37 Here's how the project we’ve proposed adjacent to the Church site fares within this context. In our initial technical assistance session with Minnesota Housing, the reaction to our, at that time, 80-unit project was “wow, very expensive.” After some lengthy explanation, the cost was perceived as more reasonable, but we were certainly put on notice. In particular, the cost of the land, though typical of transit-oriented sites, was much higher than normal. Typically, suburban projects come in at $10,000 to $15,000 a unit, and we were then at $25,000/unit. Our current 68- unit project has a land cost of $29,412/unit. This is nearing $30,000/unit which we feel, based on our past experience, is a number which puts the project in danger of being rejected outright by Minnesota Housing. Related to that, our original total development cost was $345,000/unit and is now (at 68 units) $365,000/unit. Until a few years ago, projects at more than $300,000/unit (two of ours) were rejected. Given the acceleration in construction pricing, we are now assuming, probably hoping is a better word, that the ceiling has moved up to around $350,000/unit. One way or another, we are bumping up against it if we haven’t already gone over. By now your eyes have probably glazed over, but we want to be transparent about what we’re doing, what our constraints are, and why we feel that we need to maintain the number of units that we have in the project. We realize that $350,000/unit may seem ridiculously high, but we can assure you that, given all of the governmental constraints put on projects of this type, we are in good company. The second general question which we wanted to answer more fully was “in what ways does this project benefit us?” Below is a list of what we perceive as the project’s benefits. Regional Benefits: 1. Creates more equity by providing an opportunity for lower income households to advance economically. Lower rent will allow the household to channel funds into savings, education, improving job skills, lowering credit card debt, paying for medicine and health care, buying better food, etc. 2. Stimulates the local economy. Housing provides more customers for local businesses. 3. Provides jobs. Building, maintaining, and managing housing all require an on-site or local workforce. 4. Increases the local tax base. This allows for more and more efficient government services. Our TIF request, if awarded, will have an impact on the project’s contribution to the tax base for 15 years, but after that the project will pay significant taxes that will be undiminished by TIF. 5. Supports workers in the local economy. Most of the households served by affordable housing work in the local service economy in hospitals, schools, banks, retail establishments, restaurants, delivery services, etc. 6. Adds to the vitality of the city. Households living in affordable housing tend to be younger and have children who attend local schools. They will tend to stay in and add to City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 38 the community for years to come. Consider the opposite; your community becomes older and loses population. 7. Increases the population and political clout of the community. 8. Contributes to a greener future for everyone. Higher density makes for more efficient land use, shorter trips between home, work, shopping, and leisure (which, if short enough, are made on foot or by bicycle), a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure such as roads, water, electricity, etc. coupled with less pressure to create new infrastructure, and less solid waste in the construction and operations of the housing. Benefits specific to this site: 1. With its proximity to the light rail, many retail and shopping opportunities, and local jobs, such as at the hospital and clinics, the environmental and economic benefits are increased dramatically. 2. The purchase of the land allows the church to continue as a viable community institution. 3. This development will help the City reach its affordable housing goals. 4. The site is in a transitional area that would logically be moving to higher density. It is not in the middle of an area of lower density single family and duplex development. 5. This development will provide an affordable option for families in a location where there are currently only market rate options which are often prohibitively expensive. If this project is like PPL’s other recent developments, most of the residents will be from close to the site – in this case from St. Louis Park or the surrounding areas. Finally, we want to thank you for your interest in the project and for your support of the affordable housing we are endeavoring to create. Density is frequently a difficult question, and we can appreciate your position on this issue. If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to us and we will do our best to address them. Thanks again. Sincerely, Abbie Loosen, Chris Wilson, and the rest of the Union Park Flats team City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 39 May 28, 2020 Dear Elmwood Residents and Property Owners, We believe you have recently received notice of public hearing from the City of Saint Louis Park regarding the proposed Union Park Flats housing development to be located on two adjacent parcels, 3700 Alabama Avenue and 6027 37th Street West, in the Elmwood Neighborhood of Saint Louis Park. This letter provides an update regarding the proposed project, which has evolved since the City sent the notice. All of the meeting details provided in the City’s notice remain the same – please refer to that original notice for meeting details. CHANGES MADE In response to neighborhood input received over the course of two larger in-person meetings in January and March, as well as subsequent (virtual) conversations with other neighbors that have contacted us, the project has been reduced to 60 units, and the fourth floor of the building has been removed. In addition, the pitched roof has been replaced by a flat roof to further reduce the height of the building and any visual impact on the neighborhood. The new, three-story proposal is reflected on the attached perspective and site plan. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS We want to share, clearly and directly, the facts about the revised project that will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 3. The revised project has the following characteristics: - 60 units - A mix of incomes, ranging from 30% of AMI to 80% of AMI (approximately $30,000 - $80,000 for a family of four, as an example). o PPL commits to keeping these units affordable at these incomes for a minimum of 40 years, and, as with all of our affordable housing developments, compliance with this commitment will be monitored annually by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. - Three stories, or 33’-6” as measured from the 214’ topographic line to the top of the roof. o Saint Louis Park, as with many other cities, measures building height to the top of a flat roof, and excludes the parapet, which is why the drawings reflect this measurement. Including the parapet adds 3 to 5 feet to the visible height of the building. o For reference, the 214 topographic line crosses the middle of the curb cut into the church’s north parking lot. o The proposed building to top of parapet is approximately level with the estimated height of the top of Union Church’s pitched roof. - 90 parking spaces (69 below-grade spaces, 10 surface spaces on site, and 11 on-street parking spaces directly adjacent to the property and allowed by City code to be counted in the project total) for a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. - A commitment to quality construction and sustainability. o The project will meet the requirements of the City of Saint Louis Park’s ambitious Green Building Policy. o Exterior materials will be brick, real (cementitious) stucco, and fiber-cement lap siding, in compliance with the City’s exterior materials guidance. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 40 - The northern portion of the church building will need to be demolished, and the church’s north surface parking lot will be removed. - PPL will own and manage this housing over the long term. As the original notice stated, the application is for a comprehensive plan amendment, a planned unit development (PUD), preliminary and final plat at 3700 Alabama Avenue and 6027 37th Street West. More information on the project can be found at the city website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community-development/development- projects, and click on ‘Union Park Flats’ or ‘Union Congregational Church.’ We are excited about the many benefits this project will bring to Saint Louis Park, and to the Elmwood Neighborhood in particular, including: - Providing new, high-quality housing options for a range of incomes, something that is in very short supply in Saint Louis Park and throughout the metro area. - Expanding equitable outcomes for people of color. - Creating jobs. Building, maintaining, and managing housing all require an on-site or local workforce. - Supporting workers in the local economy. Most of the households residing in PPL housing work in the local service economy in hospitals, schools, banks, retail establishments, and the like. - Enhancing the station area with more people and more vitality, increasing the customer base for local businesses. - Supporting investment in transit by adding riders within walking distance of the Wooddale LRT Station. - Contributing to a greener future for everyone. Compact development makes for more efficient land use, shorter trips between home, work, shopping, and leisure (which, if short enough, are made on foot or by bicycle), a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure such as roads, water, and electric grid. - Adding to the vitality of the city. Households living in affordable housing tend to be younger and have children who attend local schools. They will tend to stay in and add to the community for years to come. Consider the opposite; a community becomes older and loses population. This letter will be mailed to owners of all properties within 500 feet of 3700 Alabama Avenue and 6027 37th Street West, emailed to the Elmwood Neighborhood Group, and posted on NextDoor. If you have questions or request clarifications about the project, please contact Abbie Loosen at abbie.loosen@ppl-inc.org. You may also contact the City as indicated in the public hearing notice. Kind regards, Abbie Loosen, Chris Wilson, and Malika Billingslea Project for Pride in Living City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 41 Site Plan Perspective of northwest corner of the building (view from Jorvig Park): Proposed 3-story apartment building 37th Street West Brunswick Avenue South Alabama Avenue South Oxford Street Existing church City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 42 Union Congregational UCC ChurchGoals:Rework the existing facilities to embrace the future; transformthe sanctuary to a modern space that meets code.Unburden from unneeded, expensive legacy facilities.Capture the value of long‐held real estate assets and redeploynew capital in service to the church's future.Establish new sustainable budget/operations."Walk the talk" of the mission; serve families with housing.Energize the congregation and attract new members.Leave a lasting legacy for generations to come.Engage with the neighborhood and larger community.Stay at the current location another 80 years!Union Park Flats68 units; reduced from 80 in original proposal (‐15%).~850 feet walking distance (1/6thmile) to the Wooddale Station LRT platform.Mixed‐income; units from 30% to 80% AMI ($30k‐$80k for a family of 4).Family housing; 51 units with 2 or 3 bedrooms; 75% of total.Density of 57 units per acre; on the lower end for a TOD site.Height of 2‐4 stories, steps down to 2‐3 stories on sides adjacent to four SFhomes; reduction from all‐4‐story plan. Size reduction of 13,700+ sf.Gabled and hipped roof design fits neighborhood character and is desired byElmwood Neighborhood Association.Fits with the City's most recent vision for area in the 2040 Plan.136 total bedrooms; reduced from 160 in original proposal (‐16%).Building was moved 20 to the east, away from homes along Brunswick Avenue;120 feet of space now between building and homes.80 on‐site parking stalls; 1.18/unit; 1:1 is a common ratio at TOD sites.Traffic demand for new building is expected to be similar to that for the currentchurch+daycare use.Will enable many more children to live and go to school in St. Louis Park,supporting the City's Children First commitment.Working families at Union Park Flats are potential homebuyers in the City.Project for Pride in LivingGoals:Provide as much high‐quality affordable housing as possible to thosein need.Expand to the suburbs, where need is greatest.Work in a variety of cities; expand connections and experience.Establish relationships with new service partners.Create innovative housing developments; partnering with a church isexciting and holds great promise to learn and grow.Build PPL's project portfolio and increase resident‐clients formanagement staff and job training programs.Be as productive as possible with each development site to achievethe most efficient use of precious non‐profit funds.Limit excess or unnecessary costs; achieve economies of scale.The City of St. Louis ParkGoals:Create more affordable housing throughout the City; meet thegoal of 439 new units by 2030.Reduce climate impacts in a wide variety of ways, includinghousing, following the City's Climate Action Plan.Gain an understanding of racial equity, develop a shared racialequity analysis including definitions, analyze policies andpractices from a racial equity perspective, and strategize withothers on how government can advance racial equity.Allow as many residents as possible to benefit from the $2.1billion investment in the Green LRT line; three station platformsare in St. Louis Park.Continue to attract new families to the City to support schools,the resale housing market, and community vibrancy.Elmwood NeighborhoodGoals:Maintain the history and character of the neighborhood as newdevelopments occur.Ensure that new developments provide sufficient on‐site parkingso existing residents don't have difficulty parking on theirstreets.Manage traffic effectively to not create new problems.Keep new developments to an appropriate height and density inlight of planning efforts done for the area.Support a mix of housing types, including affordable.Welcome new residents to the community.City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 43 Additional Information:Density, unit count and height:12/10/19 Nicollet Partners professional appraisal for the current housing site (1.20 acres) concluded that:othe most productive use of the site is a higher‐density multi‐family development.orental housing is the most financially feasible use.oa building of up to 6 stories in height is feasible.oa proposal of 87 units at 72.5 units per acre is appropriate and feasible for the site.9/24/18 Nicollet Partners appraisal for the entire Union site (1.77 acres including the sanctuary) concluded that the site would be suitable for a 5 to 6‐story building with up to 100 units.Union UCC Church is identified in the 2040 Comp Plan as a redevelopment site in the Wooddale Station TOD district.Traffic:A traffic study done in early 2020 by the City concluded that traffic levels for an 80‐unit building will be only marginally different than the current site operations, which include a daycare center as well as the church.Affordable housing need/demand:The Met Council's goal for St. Louis Park is 439 new affordable units by 2030.The Met Council's goal for St. Louis Park last decade was 501 affordable units, but the City only added 54 affordable units, just 3.5% of total new rental units produced (1,555 units in 13 developments). The Twin Cities failed to produce roughly 31,000 affordable units needed last decade (60% AMI and below). The goal in the current decade is an additional 38,000 affordable units, for a total of approximately 70,000 new affordable units needed in the Twin Cities by 2030.City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 44 NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILT IN THE BLUE LINE LRT CORRIDOR – 2010-20168| MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16| 9KEY FACTS ABOUT THE BLUELINE CORRIDOR•12-mile stretch with 19 station platforms•Opened in June 2004; 9.5 million riders in 2014•2,739 new multifamily units delivered since 2010*•995 units to be delivered in 2016*•2,245 additional units proposed** Excludes age-restricted/senior housing projects.BLUE LINE CORRIDOR DEMOGRAPHICS(1/2 Mile Radius)Avg.Annual2010 2014 2020 Growth %Population57,643 66,035 76,002 3.2%Households25,433 29,170 32,927 2.9%Employment (Jobs) 148,200 158,468 169,921 1.5%Sources: Met Council, Minnesota Geospatial CommonsDOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS PROJECTSPROJECTS ON THE BLUE LINE OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS431613814297Junction Flats | 182 UnitsThe Nic on 5th253 Units1222 Hennepin | 286 Units6Edition Apartments (U/C)| 193 Units12Mill City Quarter (U/C)| 150 Units7Emanuel Housing | 101 Units14Mill District City Apartments| 175 Units13The Encore (U/C) | 123 Units15Rising Cedar | 40 Units17Oaks Station Place | 104 Units22City Place Lofts | 55 Units5Latitude 45 | 319 Units11Five15 on the Park | 259 Units16Longfellow Station | 180 Units21Clare Midtown | 45 Units18Upper Post Veterans Community58 Units23Corcoran Triangle (U/C) | 135 Units19IndiGO (U/C) | 394 Units24Station 38 Apartments | 64 Units20District 600 | 78 Units2Dock Street Flats | 185 Units3Velo | 101 Units48Soo Line Building CityApartments | 254 Units104Marq262 Units9Government PlazaDowntown EastNicollet MallWarehouse/Hennepin AveTargetFranklin AveCedar-RiversideLake St/Midtown38th Street46th Street50th St/Minnehaha ParkVA Medical CenterTerminal 1 –LindberghAmerican Blvd28th AveMall of AmericaFort SnellingTerminal 2 –HumphreyBloomington Central101617181920212223245111215iI-94iI-35WHwy. 5Hwy. 55MINNEAPOLISNorthImage Credits: Mill City Quarter (Star Tribune),Edition Apartments (Ryan Companies/ExcelsiorGroup), The Encore (Sherman Associates), Corcoran Triangle (BKV Group), IndiGO (ESGArchitects)City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 45 NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILT IN THE GREEN LINE LRT CORRIDOR (WEST) – 2010-201610| MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16| 11KEY FACTS ABOUT THE GREEN LINE CORRIDOR (WEST)•11-mile stretch with 18 station platforms (8 in western half)•Opened in June 2014; 10.9 million riders in first year.•1,562 new multifamily units delivered since 2010*•292 units to be delivered in 2016*•684 additional units proposed** Excludes age-restricted/senior housing projects.MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTNODES•West Bank U of M•East Bank U of M (Northrup Mall Area, HealthComplex, Stadium Village)•Prospect Park•University Avenue West (Highway 280 toSnelling Avenue)GREEN LINE CORRIDOR (WEST) DEMOGRAPHICS(1/2 Mile Radius)Avg.Annual2010 2014 2020 Growth %Population36,196 38,361 40,785 1.3%Households12,992 14,129 15,320 1.8%Employment (Jobs) 50,565 57,635 61,965 2.3%Sources: Met Council, Minnesota Geospatial Commons7west | 213 Units1The Station on Washington| 97 Units2700 on Washington | 98 Units3Stadium Village Flats | 120 Units5The Edge on Oak | 65 Units4WaHu | 333 Units6Solhaus | 75 Units7Solhaus Tower | 75 Units8Metro Park East | 194 Units9ENL House Apartments | 17 Units10Prior Crossing (U/C) | 44 Units14The Lyric at Carleton Place171 Units132700 University (U/C) | 248 Units11C & E Lofts | 104 Units121234567891011121314iI-35WiI-94iI-94Hwy. 280Snelling AvenueWest BankEast BankProspect ParkWestgateFairview AvenueSnelling AvenueRaymond AvenueStadium VillageNorthST. PAULMINNEAPOLISMississippi RiverImage Credits: 2700 University (Flaherty &Collins Properties), Prior Crossing (CermakRhoades Architects)City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 46 12| MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16MARKET VIEWPOINT: TWIN CITIES MULTIFAMILY MARKET 2015-16| 13NEW MULTIFAMILY BUILT IN THE GREEN LINE LRT CORRIDOR (EAST) – 2010-2016KEY FACTS ABOUT THE GREEN LINE CORRIDOR (EAST)•11-mile stretch with 18 station platforms (10 in eastern half)•Opened in June 2014; 10.9 million riders in first year.•1,086 new multifamily units delivered since 2010*•421 units to be delivered in 2016*•538 additional units proposed** Excludes age-restricted/senior housing projects.MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTNODES•University Avenue East (Snelling Avenue toCapitol Building)•Downtown St. Paul - West•Downtown St. Paul - LowertownGREEN LINE CORRIDOR (EAST) DEMOGRAPHICS(1/2 Mile Radius)Avg.Annual2010 2014 2020 Growth %Population37,088 44,572 48,600 3.1%Households15,131 17,462 19,416 2.8%Employment (Jobs) 54,655 66,769 71,884 3.2%Sources: Met Council, Minnesota Geospatial CommonsHamline Station East | 57 Units2Hamline Station West (U/C)| 51 Units1Lexington Commons | 48 Units3Western U Plaza | 57 Units4The Penfield | 254 Units5Rayette Lofts | 86 Units11Lofts at Farmers Market | 58 Units10Custom House (U/C)202 Units9Lowry Apartments155 Units6Minnesota Place & MinnesotaVistas | 137 Units7Pioneer Endicott234 Units81234567891011Snelling Avenue Hamline AvenueWestern AvenueCapitol/Rice StreetLexington Parkway Victoria Street Dale StreetRobert StreetCentralUnion Depot10th StreetSnelling AvenueLexington AvenueDale StreetiI-94iI-35EiI-35ENorthST. PAULCity council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 47 From:J.W. Starrett To:Anne Mavity Cc:spano@stlouispark.org; Margaret Rog; Nadia Mohamed; Larry Kraft; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer; J.W. Starrett; Dale Tatarek; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:Elmwood Development - Union Congregational Church Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:06:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Member Mavity, Subsequent to our meeting on January 7, 2020 with the potential developer for Union Congregational Church's property at 37th St. and Alabama Ave., the Elmwood Neighborhood Association met and needs your help with this project. Collectively, we have developed a position statement that we would like you to champion as our representative. “The Elmwood Neighborhood Association supports development on the Union Congregational Church site that fits the scale and scope of this historic neighborhood, transitioning down in height as it approaches the single-family homes, with ample off- street parking, and integrated affordable housing (including both senior and non-senior components) not to exceed 20% of the housing units." We believe this finds balance for all stakeholders. As our Ward 2 representative, we hope you can support and advocate the spirit and intent of this position with this developer or a different one. Thank you! We look forward to the next steps in this process and providing any additional neighborhood feedback. - The Elmwood Neighborhood Association City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 48 From:Karen Barton To:Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:FW: Union Congregational United Church of Christ Project Date:Monday, February 10, 2020 7:39:07 AM FYI From: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 9:24 AM To: mark leonard <marklnrd@gmail.com>; Nancy Deno <ndeno@stlouispark.org> Cc: Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org> Subject: RE: Union Congregational United Church of Christ Project Hello Colleen and Mark – thanks very much for sharing your thoughts and concerns about the project UCC has proposed with PPL. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the communication J.W. Starrett representing the Elmwood Neighborhood Association sent to 2nd Ward Councilmember Anne Mavity recently expressing thoughts as well. Please see below. I would also encourage you to contact Councilmember Mavity. Her email address is amavity@stlouispark.org Regards - Tom Dear Council Member Mavity, Subsequent to our meeting on January 7, 2020 with the potential developer for Union Congregational Church's property at 37th St. and Alabama Ave., the Elmwood Neighborhood Association met and needs your help with this project. Collectively, we have developed a position statement that we would like you to champion as our representative. “The Elmwood Neighborhood Association supports development on the Union Congregational Church site that fits the scale and scope of this historic neighborhood, transitioning down in height as it approaches the single-family homes, with ample off-street parking, and integrated affordable housing (including both senior and non-senior components) not to exceed 20% of the housing units." We believe this finds balance for all stakeholders. As our Ward 2 representative, we hope you can support and advocate the spirit and intent of this position with this developer or a different one. Thank you! We look forward to the next steps in this process and providing any additional neighborhood feedback. - The Elmwood Neighborhood Association City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 49 Tom Harmening (he, him, his) City Manager | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952-924-2526 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: mark leonard <marklnrd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:07 PM To: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org>; Nancy Deno <ndeno@stlouispark.org> Subject: Union Congregational United Church of Christ Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Manager and Deputy City Manager: As a resident who is directly across the street from the Union Congregation Church development we are writing to you for your assistance. Just recently the church notified the neighborhood of their project, the developer that they have chosen, and their time frame. This came as a complete surprise to us yet, the Church has stated they have been working on this for almost a year without any neighborhood input. Working with property owners who will be affected by a significant zoning change, early on, would seem to not only be prudent but respectful. The Pastor of the Church is rigid, letting residents know this is the project, and its fits their Christian mission, and there are no alternatives. Just recently they finally commenced their very first meeting in which they invited residents. You need to be made aware this meeting was informational only. They do hear the many concerns but are also very clear and forthright they have no plans to make any changes. Furthermore, they have eluded that the delay in involving neighbors was under guidance given from city officials. Living in St. Louis Park since 1999, in two different neighborhoods, I find this hard to believe. Thus, we are asking you to direct them to start the process over, working and engaging residents from the beginning. We bought our house knowing the zoning around us. They would like to change the zoning greatly for their own benefit not caring about the adverse effects for the surrounding area. Granting them a rezoning when they did not genuinely engage the community does not seem fair or just. They have a strong mission as a Church and we understand their desire to push what they want, but to do it at the expense of others, affecting quality of life of others, seems inconsistent with the values of the church or our city. With a genuine team approach and inclusive process it is very possible a win win can be accomplished. A process of collaboration from the onset can result in a project that would both, assist them with their goals, and find compatibility that is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you for your help. Colleen and Mark Leonard 6200 Oxford St, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 50 From:Sean Walther To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:FW: Proposed Union Congregation Church Project Date:Friday, March 6, 2020 8:11:27 AM Sean Walther, AICP Planning and Zoning Supervisor | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.924.2574 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 7:03 AM To: Sean Walther <swalther@stlouispark.org>; Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Union Congregation Church Project FYI and file Get Outlook for iOS From: Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 3:52 AM To: mark leonard Cc: Jake Spano; Tom Harmening; Nancy Deno Subject: Re: Proposed Union Congregation Church Project Mark and Colleen, I’ve reduced the cc: list so as not to get in trouble with our open meeting laws. Again I appreciate your email and want to remain in conversation on this. I have encouraged the developer to work with the neighborhood, and now that they have formally submitted an application, the city has a more formal role in evaluating and considering this project. If you haven’t seen it yet, please see the city’s website, where we have developments listed, and you can access the information we have been provided by PPL. I don’t have any authority over the church/the seller of the property. As a property owner, they can sell to whomever they want. We do have approval authority, as guided by our ordinances, for the development itself through PPL, and that is where I think my energy is best spent. I’ll look forward to seeing you at the meeting next Tuesday and again, am happy to chat separately in person or by phone. I very much appreciate your thoughts and input on this and that you both are always so thoughtful and reasonable in these matters. thanks for that. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 51 Anne Anne Mavity City Councilmember 952-913-1108 On Mar 4, 2020, at 9:03 AM, mark leonard <marklnrd@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council Member Mavity, Thank you very much for getting back to us. We agree and I think you will generally find that neighbors understand that higher density with SWLRT is appropriate and that Elmwood has worked with developers in the past to accomplish this. An early example is the neighborhood worked in collaboration with both Quadian Corporation and the city to design a project that increased density and found balance with design, population mix, and provide a flow into the single family homes of the Elmwood Neighborhood. This was accomplished knowing SWLRT would come and be a positive addition for everyone. The Church so far has made absolutely no genuine effort to work with other property owners in regards to the design and mix of this project, as you mentioned this is everything. I find it more than a little concerning the Church has a final project that involved no input from the immediate community. Conversations with the Church and the single meeting we had, appear to dictate to the neighborhood the project is final and going forward regardless, true and meaningful engagement is much more than this. The church eluded that prior meetings with city officials (these all occurred prior to the first and only meeting with neighbors) have resulted in a blessing of the project as is and they are moving forward based on that given direction. To those of us that have made our home in the neighborhood feel this lack of engagement with the community feels as if the Church is only working to further its onw agenda and working in its own interest without concern of the effect on its neighbors and/or other surrounding property owners. This is evident by the Church putting the onus on neighborhood leaders to advocate for and communicate any meetings. Normally, I would think, the party wanting a zoning change would be the one responsible for proactively coordinating and communicating effectively interactive meetings well in advance. Seems unreasonable and uncommon practice to put this burden onto the residents, unless it was known this would be an unpopular project, putting 100 plus new neighbors in an increasingly congested part of the city. As our representative we need your help to encourage the Church to finally work in conjunction with all stakeholders on an overall design that will find the appropriate balance. If the Church won’t and City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 52 are just going to attempt to push this through, as is, we need your support in leading the effort to deny any of these very significant zoning changes and other approvals. If not designed in collaboration with the interest of all parties involved it will have detrimental influence on the surrounding neighborhood. The Churches actions from the perspective of the neighborhood appear to have made a deliberate attempt to work on an unpopular project in the hope it could be fast tracked without community input. These actions are inconsistent with the values of our Elmwood Community as we feel we are good neighbors and attempt to find middle ground where possible. Lastly, we believe that if they would be just willing to work with the surrounding Elmwood Community this project can be a win win. As you can see we are in great need of your assistance. Thankfully, Mark and Colleen Leonard On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:15 PM Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> wrote: Thanks mark. I met with them at their invitation prior to the neighborhood meeting and told them that more neighborhood engagement is better all around. Apparently the neighborhood reps didn’t get the mtg notice out with much lead time and I understand another meeting was scheduled by them to talk with neighbors again soon. I will show up to these meetings to listen to concerns and suggestions so I better understand those perspectives. I do believe that more density near the SWLRT is appropriate but design is everything in terms of how it works with neighboring properties. They have not submitted an application to the city yet so it’s not officially under any city control in terms of reviews, notices, etc. but again my advice to them was to engage with neighbors more. I’m happy to talk with you directly as well - call me at (952) 913-1108. Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2020, at 11:33 AM, mark leonard <marklnrd@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 53 As a resident who is directly across the street from the Union Congregation Church development we are writing to you for your assistance. Just recently the church notified the neighborhood of their project, the developer that they have chosen, and their time frame. This came as a complete surprise to us yet, the Church has stated they have been working on this for almost a year without any neighborhood input. Working with property owners who will be affected by a significant zoning change, early on, would seem to not only be prudent but respectful. The Pastor of the Church is rigid, letting residents know this is the project, and its fits their Christian mission, and there are no alternatives. Just recently they finally commenced their very first meeting in which they invited residents. You need to be made aware this meeting was informational only. They do hear the many concerns but are also very clear and forthright they have no plans to make any changes. Furthermore, they have eluded that the delay in involving neighbors was under guidance given from city officials. Living in St. Louis Park since 1999, in two different neighborhoods, I find this hard to believe. Thus, we are asking you to direct them to start the process over, working and engaging residents from the beginning. We bought our house knowing the zoning around us. They would like to change the zoning greatly for their own benefit not caring about the adverse effects for the surrounding area. Granting them a rezoning when they did not genuinely engage the community does not seem fair or just. They have a strong mission as a Church and we understand their desire to push what they want, but to do it at the expense of others, affecting quality of life of others, seems inconsistent with the values of the church or our city. With a genuine team approach and inclusive process it is very possible a win win can be accomplished. A process of collaboration from the onset can result in a project that would both, assist them with their goals, and find compatibility that is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you for your help. Colleen and Mark Leonard 6200 Oxford St, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 54 From:Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) To:Anne Mavity Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Sean Walther Subject:FW: Union Congregational Church Date:Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:37:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Anne, I want to thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting earlier this week and listening to the neighborhood’s concerns about this proposed project. I was planning to talk at the meeting, but as it got longer I decided I would just write this email instead. Just as we heard from most in attendance at the meeting, I also struggle with the density of this project. This development is not located on a main/busy street such or in an area where development of this density would be expected. It is instead located in an area next to single family residential housing. I understand the church’s need for additional revenue, but simply because 80 units is what is required for them to make enough profit on the sale of the property does not mean that 80 units is the appropriate density. The question then becomes what is the appropriate density for a location such as this. Luckily, the city of St. Louis Park has recently conducted a study on a building site very similar to this location (Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study) that should provide everyone with appropriate guidelines to follow. The Eliot study was also about a development where a school/community site was being redeveloped and it even talks about being in an area with single family homes, a church across the street, and nearby commercial and industrial uses. The apartments that opened on the Eliot site opened less than five years ago, so this study should still be relevant today. The study can still be found on the city’s website. I would attach it, but I suspect attachments are not opened. It is remarkable to read this study and find how much it can be applied to the Union Congregation Church (UCC)site. Findings of the study conclude that medium density residential of six to 30 units per acre should be built on the site and that anything built should complement the existing scale and character of the surrounding homes. The study notes that on the Eliot site this would equate to 26 to 129 units. Based on other information on the city website I found that the final design of the apartments built on at the Eliot location was 138 units which equates to 32 units per acre, so just slightly over the top range of the study. Further, the apartments on the Eliot site are two stories, and step up to three stories in some locations. The proposed four stories on the UCC site is simply too much. Based on my below correspondence with Jacquelyn within the planning division of SLP, the UCC site is 1.19 acres. At 30 units per acre as the Eliot study recommends, this would result in a development City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 55 of 36 units on the UCC site. It would come up to 38 units on the UCC site at the ending 32 units per acre of what was finally built on the Eliot site. The proposal for the UCC site is 67 units per acre, which is over double these densities. This was shocking to me that the city is even entertaining the thoughts of a development that is this dense. Why are we even having to attend neighborhood meetings to defend our neighborhood from this development? The city should be applying such studies themselves and making sure they do not even get to the point where a neighborhood meeting is required. The city has recently gone through a heated debate about bike lanes in the city (Southwest Bikeway Improvements) and one of the themes used to approve that work was around treating that neighborhood the same as previous neighborhoods were treated when similar initiatives were proposed. Please treat the Elmwood neighborhood the same as the neighborhood around the Eliot site was treated for proposed residential development. I ask that you please consider these numbers as this proposal is voted on by the city and ensure that this development stays at 30 units per acre. I also ask that you please read the Eliot site study and that the study is attached to any agenda items reviewed by the city council or planning commission. Please also include my thoughts and concerns with other members of both the city council and the planning commission and that those members are informed about the Eliot site study. The study should clearly help define what the density of development of the UCC site should be. Thanks, Brian (an Elmwood neighborhood resident) From: Jacquelyn Kramer [mailto:jkramer@stlouispark.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:33 AM To: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Union Congregational Church Good morning Brian, The proposed apartment building lot would be 1.19 acres. So with 80 units it would have a density of 67 units per acre. One of the requests from the developer is a comprehensive plan amendment, which would reguide the proposed parcel from the civic designation to high density residential, which allows up to 75 units per acre. Please let me know if you have any other questions about the proposal. Thanks. Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) <BRFuchs@express-scripts.com> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 56 Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:22 AM To: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Subject: Union Congregational Church CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jacquelyn, I attended the neighborhood meeting last night on the proposed development on the school/community portion of the UCC property. One thing I was wondering once I got home was what is the size of the proposed building site in terms of acres? I am wondering what 80 units would be in terms of density stated as units per acre. Thanks, Brian City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 57 From:John Basill To:Karen Barton; Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Tom Harmening Subject:UCC Date:Sunday, March 15, 2020 9:42:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Karen, Sean, and Jacquelyn:Hope this email finds you well.Writing to you today in regards to Project for Pride inLiving (PPL) request for city approval to construct afour story, 80-unit affordable apartment building onproperty owned by Union Congregational Church(UCC). As you are aware their request for approvalincludes significant changes and multiple concessionsincluding:A comprehensive plan amendment to regicidethe northern portion of the site from civic tohigh density residential.Rezoning the site to a planned unitdevelopment (PUD), to achieve an amendmentfor both the zoning map and zoning text.Preliminary and final plat approval to create anorth parcel for the apartment building and asouth parcel for the church.As mentioned in one of the publications, and as weknow, when a proposed redevelopment like this isinitiated, consideration must be given to both thehousing goals and neighborhood land usedevelopment goals. The comprehensive Elmwood Area Land Use, Transit,and Transportation Study, included the followingactive participants the City of St. Louis Park(Community Development, Public Works, and Parks),Hennepin County, the Met Council, Metro Transit, theMN DOT, Three River Parks District, HennepinCounty Regional Rail Authority, the Twin City andWestern Railroad, a Community Advisory Committee, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 58 and twelve area businesses, including AldersgateMethodist. A Project management Team was formedto direct the study and assure effectiveconsultations/coordination between all agenciesalong with regular communication. The study was inanticipation and considered light rail and otherchanges we are seeing. The completed study set forth a collaborative visionfor the future. With vast parties involved in thisextensive process, it was meant to assure that nosingle interest would be larger than the overall area. As stated in the study the purpose was to establish areasonable framework for decision making, providedirection and focus, be used as evaluation criteria inreviewing private sector development initiatives;establish a common expectation amongst decisionmakers, policy makers, property owners and tenants. The study and communication set forth the following:*Areas ‘small town’ feel should be preserved*Rowhouses or townhomes*Integrated (not concentrated) affordable housing*Compatible Land uses with the single familyresidential area, community character*Parcels west of Wooddale Avenue should beredeveloped for residential use, progressivelyincreasing in density from Oxford Street north toWest 36th street*Age-restricted housing should be considered as adevelopment component responding toneighborhood and community needs.*Residential density should transition from low tohigh, increasing south to north.*Owner–occupied housing should be encouraged*Irregular land use patterns between single familyhomes and other land uses should have clear distinct City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 59 edges. *Low density townhomes on the north side of OxfordStreet should have an architectural character andscale that compliments the residential neighborhoodsscale and character.Attended, for the first time in a very long time, thispast Tuesday, a community meeting, and was takenback by the church’s (UCC) position and demeanor.Pastor Barb was not bashful and stated “We don’thave to be transparent but we will today”. Sheexpressed the view that participation is not needed asthey are the seller – it was demeaning as an attendee.She went onto say that they did not want anymeetings until their “Ducks were in a row”. With thesurrounding context it was explicit that until whatthey wanted was completed they were not going toshare. Pastor Barb went on to communicate that evenafter this sale there is no guarantee they would beviable for very long. Unsure if it is prudent to jumpthrough hoops for them to cash in short term. Back in my active days I can vividly remember howactive the UCC board and parishioners (many stillmembers today) were regarding the Quadiondevelopment. They demanded (an understatement)that one of the early initial proposals be thrown outin its entirety due to height, density, and parking. Subsequently they insisted that the projectsignificantly be reduce in scale and scope, in no caseshould it be over two stories, and must have morethan ample off street parking. This was to assure itwould not affect their Sundays and other event onstreet parking. They were adamant that the Quadiondevelopment scale down as it approached the churchand the neighborhood. It is very ironic that now theyare requesting a PUD with the height jumping back upsignificantly (even as it more closely borders theneighborhood), against the precedent they helped setand were passionate about. If allowed this will havethe same drawbacks on others in which theypreviously successfully and aggressively argued toprevent happening to themselves. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 60 Also to note it appeared the developer was not beinggenuine or transparent. One example, he was asked aquestion from a resident “If there would be the needfor any city assistance and if so the amount”. Hepaused, said yes, and then when asked for generalamount from the resident – “will it be .5M or 1M orwhere a bouts”, he said they do not know. Yet it isalready published they will be requesting around$972,000 and it was evident he clearly knew. Verydisheartening. Not sure this lack of forthrightnessshould be rewarded and thus if this is a developerthat meets the ethical standards that should beexpected. The resident attendees included some that were veryemotional, and one who is notorious and self-focused. There were also some very well-articulated,thought-out, constructive, and legitimate concernscommunicated. Thought the overall desires theycommunicated were collaborative and solution based.Generally, it was a development with the appropriatescope, scaling down as it approaches theneighborhood, with both affordability and marketrate housing, designed to accommodate parking andtransitional architecture, would makes sense foreveryone. Seemed reasonable, practical, balanced,while meeting some of the needs for all. It was goodto see that the folks were not saying absolutelynothing should happen at this site. In regards to the seller and one developer requests itis evident that they have chosen to ignore the veryfoundation and DNA of St. Louis Park, embracingrequirements and guidance from an inclusiveprocess. It is reasonable that the criteria in the 30year land to use study be considered as intended. Ican imagine there are many developers/buyers thatwould be willing to work in conjunction with theseller and the city on a project, at this site, that wouldmeet the variety of needs. As you will recognize they have not met many of therequirements and objectives including those set forth City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 61 in the land use study listed above. A project thatmeets these goals is clearly possible, as evident byother successful redevelopments in the area. Asmentioned they are requesting very significantchanges and concessions. Thus, very hopeful therecommendation is not to proceed with theapplications and denial. Appreciate your time and consideration.Respectfully,John Basill City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 62 From:gregg anderson To:spano@stlouispark.org; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:PPL Background Date:Wednesday, March 18, 2020 12:38:21 PM Attachments:ppl_review.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: We recently attended a neighborhood meeting regarding the Union Congregational Church property. Although we were not made aware of this project until to just recently, we are for affordable housing. We have been long term residents, who have been active in the community over the years, from coaching girls soccer to currently being employed at the school district helping our children. We have had the time to research and digest this concept - PLEASE take the time to read the reviews on PPL attached. It is a struggle to find any positive reviews on this specific developer. I am sure PPL is well intentioned but this would be one of their largest projects and you will find they are struggling. This cannot be the only choice. There has to be a developer that would design a project with complimentary architecture, appropriate density, transitional height as it borders single family homes, and a better track record. Lastly, being active in the schools, children of lower socio-economic means struggle more when they come from concentrated housing we have in our city. The "village" approach is dramatically more effective if in fact we want to help lower income children succeed. It would be better to add eighty more units of affordable housing throughout the community. For example, over the next eight developments add ten affordable units in each. From firsthand experience this will benefit individuals seeking affordable housing the most and in numerous ways. Thank you for your time. Sue and Gregg Anderson City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 63 From:m ritter To:Anne Mavity Cc:Jake Spano; Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: ELMWOOD Date:Monday, March 23, 2020 1:33:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. i hope you all are staying healthy and safe right now. On Mar 23, 2020, at 10:01 AM, Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> wrote: I understand your frustration. When the developers and church first informed me about the development I immediately told them as I tell every developer when they come in with an idea that the city expects in hopes that they will engage the community and neighborhood early and often. The city does not have control over that part of the process. Now that an official application is in the city will be following its processes and protocals and timelines. Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:30 AM, m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the quick response Anne. As you are aware the pastor stated at the meeting that they had been working with the developer and the city for some time - many months(years?). This project is scaling up significantly as it comes into the neighborhood and has given no consideration to the existing neighborhood and homes. As you were aware of the meetings and this project, it would have seemed appropriate as our representative, that you assure the church actually formally communication to residents, if actionable feedback was welcome. At the meeting I am sure you heard the pastor state that she does not need to be transparent but will try to be tonight. She also talked about as the seller there was no obligation to get this input. I find it sad that I had to find out about this meeting second hand along with the lack of involvement, in a major change, with less then 60 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 64 days to final approval. There is only one proposal and it was clear at the meeting this is the plan. I would hope you can be counted on not to support this project. Thanks. Mike On Mar 22, 2020, at 9:47 PM, Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> wrote: Hi Mike, Thanks for the email. The city has statute based timelines that guide its response times once a project has applied to the city. I’ll let staff fill in those details. The two meetings to date were meetings organized and hosted by the church and the developer, not by the city, even though I have attended each one. Now that the city has received a formal application, the city’s official review has begun - and you can get information about the project now on the city’s website. Staff can follow up with details on the process and timing. Feel feel to email or call me with additional comments or questions. Best, Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2020, at 9:20 PM, m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council: A project was sprung on our neighborhood at a March 10th meeting. The UCC informed us that they are going to have an 80 unit 4 story complex built directly adjacent to single family properties. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 65 I live very close to the Church(less than 2 blocks). Thanks to word of mouth from my neighbors this was the first meeting I was aware of. I do not understand the lack of notice or communication on a project that will have major impact on all of us who live in the neighborhood. With final approvals set for May 4th(less than 60 days from May 10th meeting does not seem fair) this is what unfortunately occurs - see picture. I hope this project will be reevaluated. Thank You Mike Two homes for sale. <Screenshot 2020-03-17 at 6.35.05 PM.jpeg> <Screenshot 2020-03-17 at 6.35.05 PM.jpeg> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 66 From:m ritter To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Jake Spano; Sean Walther; Tom Harmening; Anne Mavity; Karen Barton Subject:Re: ELMWOOD Date:Monday, March 23, 2020 12:08:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks Jacquelyn, Just a couple observations. We all realize this is a very significant change in what the property is being used for today, even with the minor changes. I was made aware of the following at the meeting: ( just does not seem reasonable or fair – seems to be slanted): This project actually increases in height significantly as is approaches the neighborhood. There is already scaling down in height (townhome height)which seems to work well for everyone as a transition to the neighborhood. I learned at the meeting that the church lobbied very hard to make sure that the development across the street transitioned down to their property. They also assured there was more then enough off street parking so that parking for their services was not jeopardized. If there is going to be this significant change in land use, ignoring precedent scaling, should there not have been more of a process, involvement, a study for what would make sense, especially since the Church said they working on this back in mid 2019. As mentioned not sure why this is the only option. It sure appears like this is being rammed through when a proposal that would work for everyone could occur. It would just seem best to get all parties together and come back with recommendations that could work for everyone. Since this is achievable I am unsure why this project should go forward. Those are just some thoughts which would seem equitable. Mike On Mar 23, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> wrote: Good morning Mike, Here are some further details on the notifications that have gone out and will go out for this project. As Councilmember Mavity mentioned, the church has held two neighborhood meetings on this project on January 7 and March 10. Meeting information was distributed on neighborhood email lists and social media, and the March 10 meeting was advertised on mailed flyers. These flyers should have reached every property within 500 feet of the project site. For the city approval process, state statute has strict requirements on the public outreach required for public hearings and council action. A notice will be published in the Sun Sailor at least ten day before the planning commission public hearing, so that notice will appear in the paper next Thursday. Also next week, every property within 500 feet of the project site will receive a letter from the city describing the project and the public hearing. In addition to these state statute requirements, city social media accounts (Facebook and Nextdoor) have been advertising the neighborhood meetings. These accounts will distribute information on the public hearing as the date approaches as well. We also email public hearing notices directly to neighborhood organizations. The city website will update with meeting information as it becomes available. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 67 Please let me know if you have any questions on these notifications. Thank you. From: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 10:13 AM To: m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> Cc: Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org>; Sean Walther <swalther@stlouispark.org>; Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org>; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org> Subject: Re: ELMWOOD Good morning Mike, Thank you for reaching out to Councilmember Mavity and city staff. I am tracking every email, phone call, and letter we receive on this project to ensure they are presented to planning commission and city council as they make their decisions. To expand upon Councilmember Mavity's earlier email: the city received the formal planning applications for this project on March 2. Once the application is submitted and deemed complete by staff, we can then publish project details and schedule a public hearing, which will be held on April 15. I will update the project page on the city website when I have more information on the format of the public hearing: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community-development/development- projects/union-congregational-church. State statute requires that cities approve or deny planning applications within 60 days of a complete submittal. We can administratively extend that deadline another 60 days, but we try to get applications to council as close to that deadline as possible. That is the reason this project (and all applications that need council approval) move through the city process in 2-3 months. The developer has made some modifications to their project based on neighborhood feedback, including adding surface parking south of the apartment building, reducing the number of bedrooms, and altering the west elevation design to create a more townhome-like feel across the street from the single family homes. I understand these modifications may not satisfy your concerns, which is why the city will take comments on this project until city council makes a decision on May 4. Please let me know if you have any other questions on the project, and thank you again for your engagement. From: Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 9:47 PM To: m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> Cc: Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org>; Sean Walther <swalther@stlouispark.org>; Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org>; Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Subject: Re: ELMWOOD Hi Mike, Thanks for the email. The city has statute based timelines that guide its response times oncea project has applied to the city. I’ll let staff fill in those details. The two meetings to date were meetings organized and hosted by the church and the developer,not by the city, even though I have attended each one. Now that the city has received a formal application, the city’s official review has begun -and you can get information about the project now on the city’s website. Staff can follow up with details on the process and timing. Feel feel to email or call mewith additional comments or questions. Best, Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2020, at 9:20 PM, m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 68 and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council: A project was sprung on our neighborhood at a March 10th meeting. The UCC informed us thatthey are going to have an 80 unit 4 story complex built directly adjacent to single familyproperties. I live very close to the Church(less than 2 blocks). Thanks to word of mouth from my neighborsthis was the first meeting I was aware of. I do not understand the lack of notice orcommunication on a project that will have major impact on all of us who live in theneighborhood. With final approvals set for May 4th(less than 60 days from May 10th meeting does not seemfair) this is what unfortunately occurs - see picture. I hope this project will be reevaluated. Thank YouMike Two homes for sale.<Screenshot 2020-03-17 at 6.35.05 PM.jpeg> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 69 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 70 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 71 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 72 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 73 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 74 From:m ritter To:Anne Mavity Cc:Jake Spano; Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: ELMWOOD Date:Monday, March 23, 2020 1:33:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. i hope you all are staying healthy and safe right now. On Mar 23, 2020, at 10:01 AM, Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> wrote: I understand your frustration. When the developers and church first informed me about the development I immediately told them as I tell every developer when they come in with an idea that the city expects in hopes that they will engage the community and neighborhood early and often. The city does not have control over that part of the process. Now that an official application is in the city will be following its processes and protocals and timelines. Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:30 AM, m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the quick response Anne. As you are aware the pastor stated at the meeting that they had been working with the developer and the city for some time - many months(years?). This project is scaling up significantly as it comes into the neighborhood and has given no consideration to the existing neighborhood and homes. As you were aware of the meetings and this project, it would have seemed appropriate as our representative, that you assure the church actually formally communication to residents, if actionable feedback was welcome. At the meeting I am sure you heard the pastor state that she does not need to be transparent but will try to be tonight. She also talked about as the seller there was no obligation to get this input. I find it sad that I had to find out about this meeting second hand along with the lack of involvement, in a major change, with less then 60 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 75 days to final approval. There is only one proposal and it was clear at the meeting this is the plan. I would hope you can be counted on not to support this project. Thanks. Mike On Mar 22, 2020, at 9:47 PM, Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> wrote: Hi Mike, Thanks for the email. The city has statute based timelines that guide its response times once a project has applied to the city. I’ll let staff fill in those details. The two meetings to date were meetings organized and hosted by the church and the developer, not by the city, even though I have attended each one. Now that the city has received a formal application, the city’s official review has begun - and you can get information about the project now on the city’s website. Staff can follow up with details on the process and timing. Feel feel to email or call me with additional comments or questions. Best, Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2020, at 9:20 PM, m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council: A project was sprung on our neighborhood at a March 10th meeting. The UCC informed us that they are going to have an 80 unit 4 story complex built directly adjacent to single family properties. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 76 I live very close to the Church(less than 2 blocks). Thanks to word of mouth from my neighbors this was the first meeting I was aware of. I do not understand the lack of notice or communication on a project that will have major impact on all of us who live in the neighborhood. With final approvals set for May 4th(less than 60 days from May 10th meeting does not seem fair) this is what unfortunately occurs - see picture. I hope this project will be reevaluated. Thank You Mike Two homes for sale. <Screenshot 2020-03-17 at 6.35.05 PM.jpeg> <Screenshot 2020-03-17 at 6.35.05 PM.jpeg> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 77 From:Mitchell Aldrich To:Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Congragational Church Development Project Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 4:46:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear respected Council and Planning Staff Members Jacquelyn and Sean: My single family home borders the Church immediately to its West and immediately to the South of the proposed development. I am truly at ground zero for this development. My concern is the scale of the proposed development so close to my and other single-family homes. While my garage cannot exceed 15 feet in height, it seems completely incongruous to allow a 50 – 60 foot roof just 50 to 100 feet to my North. But most significantly, the scale of the proposed development does not comply with the City approved Elmwood Community Development Plan to gradually increase in height as we move away from single family homes. Bottom Line: a three or four story development is too high within this block and is out of compliance with the city’s approved development plan. Request: Wholeheartedly approve a development of no more than two stories. I can be reached anytime for discussion. Sincerely, Mitchell Aldrich 6016 Oxford St. 952.212.5564 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 78 From:John Gleason To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC Development Proposal - Opposed Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 11:50:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jacquelyn, I am a current Elmwood homeowner, lived here for the past 20 years. My family has owned and operated a St Louis Park based business for over 50 years. I grew up in and around the Park; getting donuts at Palms Bakery, sodas at Pic-a-Pop, lunch at the Lincoln Dell; the bunk bed I shared with my brother came from Treasure Island and many more great SLP memories. A list of experiences that compelled me to raise my family in SLP. I also have a long connection to PPL. In 1997, I began volunteering with PPL as part of the college group that contributed hundreds of volunteer hours to their cause. Through my employer, I continued volunteering with PPL as a tutor and now assisting undeserved communities with quality employment opportunities. I believe in the PPL mission. Unfortunately, the well intended PPL group has designed a proposed development should not be built: 1) Structure is too big and too dense for the site. This would be the tallest/highest and most dense building southwest of the Wooddale & 36th intersection, yet directly abutting multiple single-family homes. The structure is 3x the height of the average home in the area, nearly 4x the height of one of the adjacent homes and would tower more than 20 ft above the peek of Union Congregational Church. Further, it will be larger and greater than 30% more dense than Village in the Park and Park Lofts developments to the northeast. 2) Structure has too little parking. The proposed project has less than 60% of the parking required by code (City Code Sec, 36-361), while eliminating 70% of the off- street parking currently used by the church. Transit experts predict the apartment complex would generate 75+ vehicles parking on the street, daily. The elimination of the church parking lot will add 50+ additional vehicles parking on-street during church functions (currently, the church lot fill 3-4 days a week). This will result in ~125 additional vehicles parking on Elmwood streets most days of the week. 3) Structure does not fit the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed structure is a massive contemporary box that would sit with in 300 ft of some of SLP oldest homes (1891, 1895, 1895, 1895, 1895, 1910) and historic depot (1887). More than 30 of SLP's 70 home built 1900 or earlier are in Elmwood - of which 17 are with in 2 blocks the contemporary box. Any structure should fit the architectural nature or this area as laid out in the Elmwood Land Use Study and SLP 2040 plan. Per the current and valid Elmwood Land Use Study, appropriate development for sites abutting existing single family homes should be "Low-density townhouses...of a form, style and material selection that complements the remainder of the Elmwood City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 79 single-family housing stock". Low-medium density on this site is no more than 2.5 stories, with ample underground parking stalls, and architecture that fits the historical nature of the surrounding homes and neighborhood. This is the standard that any developer of the site must meet. Please share my commentary, above, and strong opposition to the current development proposal with the planning committee and city council. Thanks, John City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 80 From:m ritter To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Elmwood Neighborhood Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 11:50:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jacquelyn- The Union Congregational Church(UCC) proposed development is way beyond what is reasonable for the Elmwood Neighborhood. It completely contradicts the city of St louis Park and the UCC’s stance on a recently proposed development in the neighborhood on a couple important issues. Scale, Parking and Aesthetics. Since you will be voting on this matter soon, i feel it is important that you understand what is happening in the Elmwood Neighborhood(not an industrial area) so you can make an informed vote. A vote that will reflect the citizens that you represent. In the Elmwood Land Use Study, the UCC hosted and participated in creating a neighborhood position statement. During that study and during the proposed Quadion re-development the UCC strongly opposed the proposed 4 story apartment complex just east of their property. The reason being it would be inappropriate for the neighborhood and would overwhelm the historic church. At that time the UCC advocated for stepped increase in density and in height as it moved AWAY from the church and the single family homes. They pushed hard for the development to not exceed the height of their church(2.5 stories). Fast forward to today, they have completely ignored their neighbors input as well as the concerns of their historic church building. The second concern is parking and safety. With narrow roads and especially during the winter months, adding 75-100 more vehicles parked on the streets will make it next to impossible for emergency vehicles to move through the neighborhoods and will end badly if and when there is an emergency. I hope you can take some time to drive, walk or bike through this area before making your decision. Also in the Elmwood Land Use Study the UCC argued aggressively for higher levels of structured off-street parking for neighboring developments citing concern that under planning the parking situation will result in residents parking on the streets which would eliminate the on-street parking for their church service and event goers. There was a compromise made that there would be 2 structured parking stalls per unit in the town homes. Even with the 2 stalls per unit, the town homes have cars parking on the street daily. What has changed with the off street parking concerns today? A third concern is aesthetics. St. Louis Park’s 2040 Plan clearly states re/development must fit historic single-family home character of the neighborhood and contribute positively to its livability. It recommends that a development should “preserve and enhance the livability and unique character of each neighborhoods residential areas…Require the creation of appropriate and effective buffer or transition areas between different land use.” The south side of the enormous proposed building is majority fiber-cement with a small amount stone. The proposed building is a contemporary box with no characteristics of the historic church or City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 81 neighborhood that we live in. I encourage you to visit this site before making your decision so you fully understand how the proposed project does not fit in scale and will over congest this area. All aspects mentioned above can be addressed by simply scaling this project way back. Be honest, would you want a massive 65’ - 4 story building directly in the backyard of your families rambler, as well as all of the vehicles from that building parked in the front of your home? thank you for your time mike City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 82 From:Rick Coperine To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC Development Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 8:52:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family has lived in our house on 3700 Brunswick Ave So for 40 years and I am writing to express our dismay that our neighborhood church is trying to get a variance to build a huge 4 story apartment building towering over our 2 story house. This is totally out of proportion with the neighborhood. With the proposed larger population and lack of off street parking, I fear the character of the neighborhood would be irreversibly damaged. Please consider this neighborhood and the people living here before allowing such a drastic change to happen regardless of the "well meaning " proposals that have been sprung on us in the last month. Thank you. Richard and Claudia Coperine Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 83 From:Sue Basill To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:proposed project at UCC Date:Monday, March 30, 2020 1:15:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacqueline, I am writing to you to express my concerns for the proposed PPL project that is slated for development at Union Congregational Church. I feel that the size of the proposed project is way too massive for this location. A four story/80 unit apartment building would look wildly out of place in this historic part of St. Louis Park. If built at this size, it would cast shadows over the adjacent park and homes. If built at this size it would be three times the height of the homes that are adjacent to the development. With this massive size, comes the next problem. Lack of parking. The proposed development has only 70 underground parking spaces with an additional 10 spots above ground, sacrificing green space. The city currently has a requirement that multi-family housing needs to provide 1 parking spot per bedroom. The proposed project is supposed to have 135 bedrooms. That is more that 50 spots short of the city requirement that would end up parking on our already narrow crowded city streets. Between businesses, church’s needs, and residents there is much street parking already. Also, this proposed project design does not look or feel like it is going to fit into this very unique and historic part of St Louis Park. The proposed development in fact looks far from it. It looks like a stack-a-shack…buildings that get put in as quickly and cheaply as possible, with no concern for existing properties or long term character of the area. That being said, be no means am I opposed to development on the site. As a person that has been active at Meadowbrook Collaborative and Perspectives, Inc. over the years, it just needs to be reasonable. For example, 40 units, which would allow ample parking, complimentary architecture, and building exterior that fit in with this wonderful historic area of St. Louis Park. One could assume that the church would want a building as large as they could get, for their own financial benefit. This should not be the community’s problem. With the right size building they can get some of what they need without sacrificing the character and adversely effecting others. Respectively, Sue Basill 6208 Oxford Street St. Louis Park 952.905.6798 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 84 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 85 From:ElmwoodNeighborhood Email Group To:Tom Harmening; Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer; Jake Spano Subject:4/15 Planning Commission Meeting Date:Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:30:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Harmening, As our neighborhood has been closely following and trying to have our input heard by the developers of the Union Congregational Church development, the city appears to moving rapidly forward with this application despite a pandemic that currently has city facilities closed. The city's development's page was updated this week to say the scheduled April 15 Planning Commission meeting would be held virtually which is not conducive for public discourse of this nature. Presumably, the city council would be doing the same on May 4. Residents of St. Louis Park have a right to publicly comment and the methods offered do not allow for accessibility to those who may not have phone service, internet access, or auxiliary aids available for their disabilities. We ask that these meetings and any subsequent action on the development and other non- essential agenda items before the city be delayed until all facilities are safe and open to the public once social distancing guidelines are suspended. We feel this is the proper and right thing to do so the city can focus on essential services during this state of emergency. We hope you have already been thinking the same thing and look forward to you reply. -- Thank you, Elmwood Neighborhood Association Board City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 86 From:m ritter To:Rachel Harris Cc:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; jimbeneke@msn.com; mattheweckholm@gmail.com; duma17@yahoo.com; courtae@gmail.com; jessicaskraft@gmail.com; Claudia Johnston; crobertson@sjoquist.com; Jacquelyn Kramer; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: Elmwood Neighborhood Date:Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:48:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for your response Rachel and I apologize for any inconvenience. I sent the same email to my ward council member but haven’t heard anything back. It is concerning that a project of this importance and impact is being “fast tracked” especially given all the uncertainties with the current world pandemic. Thank you for requesting the addition of exterior enhancements. That church is seriously beautiful. It would be an architectural sin to bury the historic building with the proposed structure. I hope your request doesn’t fall on deaf ears. My email was simply expressing concern on 3 things: Scale. Parking/Safty. Aesthetics. I do not dispute the need for stable, affordable housing. The Elmwood Neighborhood is absolutely for affordable housing. Just to be clear... the Elmwood Neighborhood is for affordable housing. The respectable size for that land is 2 stories and 40 units. 2 stories will not overwhelm the church and the single family homes in the Neighborhood. 40 units will give the developer plenty of room to provide their tenants with structured parking spaces to keep the narrow streets open for plows to clear the roads of snow in the winter and for emergency vehicles to move through the neighborhood in the unfortunate event of a fire or medical emergency. We just ask that you help scale the whole project down. Please keep the cities current residence safe so we can help this community grow. Copying all council members and planning commission for transparency. Sincerely, Mike “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” -african proverb On Apr 2, 2020, at 8:35 AM, Rachel Harris <rharris@stlouispark.org> wrote: Hello Mike, I saw your message come in a week ago. Things have been a little hectic lately with navigating working from home. I can understand your urgency with wanting a response from councilmembers as this project is on a fast track for a decision before council. You bring up a valid point in having the project fit in with the neighborhood. In an initial preview of the project, I requested that the developer add exterior enhancements to blend the structure in with the neighborhood. Now, more than ever, our community is in need of affordable housing after weeks of historic job loss. One of my tasks as a councilmember is to balance our communiy’s need for stable, affordable housing with development and neighborhoods. There’s not one right answer. Copying your ward council member Anne Mavity for transparency. Sincerely, Rachel Harris City Council Ward 3 Get Outlook for iOS From: m ritter <schmike1979@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:46 AM To: Rachel Harris Subject: Elmwood Neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Member Harris I sent an email to you on the 22nd of March but never received a response. I hope these emails find you in good health. The Union Congregational Church(UCC) proposed development is way beyond what is reasonable for the Elmwood Neighborhood. It completely contradicts the city of St louis Park and the UCC’s stance on a recently proposed development in the neighborhood on a couple important issues. Scale, Parking and Aesthetics. Since you will be voting on this matter soon, i feel it is important that you understand what is happening in the Elmwood Neighborhood(not an industrial area) so you can make an informed vote. A vote that will reflect the citizens that you represent. In the Elmwood Land Use Study, the UCC hosted and participated in creating a neighborhood position statement. During that study and during the proposed Quadion re-development the UCC strongly opposed the proposed 4 story apartment complex just east of their property. The reason being it would be inappropriate for the neighborhood and would overwhelm the historic church. At that time the UCC advocated for stepped increase in density and in height as it moved AWAY from the church and the single family homes. They pushed hard for the development to not exceed the height of their church(2.5 stories). Fast forward to today, they have completely ignored their neighbors input as well as the concerns of their historic church building. The second concern is parking and safety. With narrow roads and especially during the winter months, adding 75-100 more vehicles parked on the streets will make it next to impossible for emergency vehicles to move through the neighborhoods and will end badly if and when there is an emergency. I hope you can take some time to drive, walk or bike through this area before making your decision. Also in the Elmwood Land Use Study the UCC argued aggressively for higher levels of structured off-street parking for neighboring developments citing concern that under planning the parking situation will result in residents parking on the streets which would eliminate the on-street parking for their church service and event goers. There was a compromise made that there would be 2 structured parking stalls per unit in the town homes. Even with the 2 stalls per unit, the town homes have cars parking on the street daily. What has changed with the off street parking concerns today? A third concern is aesthetics. St. Louis Park’s 2040 Plan clearly states re/development must fit historic single-family home character of the neighborhood and contribute positively to its livability. It recommends that a development should “preserve and enhance the livability and unique character of each neighborhoods residential areas…Require the creation of appropriate and effective buffer or transition areas between different land use.” The south side of the enormous proposed building is majority fiber-cement with a small amount stone. The proposed building is a contemporary box with no characteristics of the historic church or neighborhood that we live in. I encourage you to visit this site before making your decision so you fully understand how the proposed project does not fit in scale and will over congest this area. All aspects mentioned above can be addressed by simply scaling this project way back. Be honest, would you want a massive 65’ - 4 story building directly in the backyard of your families rambler, as well as all of the vehicles from that building parked in the front of your home? thank you for your time mike City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 87 From:Eric Litkey To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC project in Elmwood Date:Friday, April 3, 2020 5:42:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jacquelyn, Thank you again for your time on the phone. I just want to summarize my concerns with the proposed apartment building development at the Union Congregational Church on 37th St. and Alabama. 1.The size of the proposed building is TOO BIG for the neighborhood. They want to build a 4-story, 80-unit, 130- bedroom apartment. The 2003 Elmwood Land Use Study does not allow for anything that big to be built next to houses. That apartment would tower over Johnny Pops, the adjacent houses, historic Jorvig Park and train depot, and the church itself. The apartment needs to be only 2 stories on the north side and 1 story on the south side, so it tapers into the neighborhood. 2.Insufficient Parking. The proposed 130-bedroom apartment only allows for 70 underground parking stalls. Dozens of extra cars are going to be parking all over the streets within 2 blocks of the apartment. This will be a huge problem when the church has their services and other events, since the apartment will be built over the church's 52-stall parking lot. Many more cars going in and out of a 4-story apartment leads to additional safety concerns for my kids and the neighborhood kids who are going to the park or walking and biking around that block. The developer, Project for Pride in Living, can keep the 70 underground parking stalls, but the building needs to come down to 2 stories to fit the scope of Elmwood. Thank you for your kind attention, Eric Litkey 6025 Goodrich Ave. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 88 From:Eric Litkey To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Elmwood Project Date:Friday, April 3, 2020 3:15:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacquelyn, Thank you so much for your willingness to listen to me on the phone this past week about my concerns regarding the Elmwood/UCC/PPL proposal. It was so nice to actually speak with someone instead of just email. I have listed below the email that I sent to some members of the Planning Commission for your review. In light of the current events, I am not sure why this particular project is being so heavily fast tracked without allowing the involved parties to actually be present for debate and discussion. I have been involved with numerous Zoom meetings for work which work well when one person is leading the discussion and everyone else listens, but this is not at all conducive to the type of meeting that would otherwise be held in this situation with so many participants. I would think there are certainly more pressing matters the city could be dealing with right now. Perhaps you could shed some light on that for me? I thank you for everything you are doing for St. Louis Park through this difficult time with the added challenges of remote work and the ever changing demands. Hope you are staying safe and healthy, JoAnn Litkey My name is JoAnn Litkey; I live in the Elmwood neighborhood, and I would like a few moments of your time to discuss the proposed development at the Union Congregational Church site. The proposed development is a 4 story, 80-unit apartment building with around 130-160 bedrooms and 80 total parking spaces (this includes guest parking), that will sit directly across the alley and street from single family homes as well as the historic Jorvig park. I hope you can agree that this is clearly far too massive in scope to fit the appropriate size of the neighborhood. This building would be 3 to 4 times the height and the other surrounding homes. There would easily be 80-100 cars parked on the neighborhood streets at all times which substantially increases the likelihood of a pedestrian (my kid on a bike) involved motor vehicle accident. The additional traffic coming and going would make crossing the streets a dangerous proposition as we know that no kid actually looks both ways both bolting out into the street. As a mother of young kids, who bike and run up and down the streets, this is frankly a terrifying situation. Additionally, what are these apartment residents to do in the winter during a snow emergency and streets need to be plowed? Is the plan just to no longer plow Elmwood? The newer, narrow streets with 100+ cars parked up and down both sides of every block will make it impossible for those cars to be moved every time it snows. What about street cleaning in the fall and spring? That will never happen in the Elmwood neighborhood again with so much street parking and no possible alternative off City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 89 street parking. I cannot imagine that any home owner, regardless of neighborhood, would like something of this overwhelming size to be built across the street from their own home. This project as proposed is breathtakingly shortsighted for a multitude of reasons: massively inappropriate size and scope, laughably inadequate parking, unanswered and serious safety concerns for pedestrians/kids, impossible city road maintenance, and building an apartment of the cheapest materials possible in the oldest neighborhood of St. Louis Park. The developer is expecting to have control of this property for 40 years. What exactly will be the imperative for them in 5 to 10 years to replace the failing siding, broken windows, and deterioration that happens quickly with rental property? I am begging the planning commission to stop this current proposal so that all parties involved can have the time needed to collaborate and make a thoughtful decision that will benefit all parties involved: the current home owners in the Elmwood neighborhood, Union Congregational Church, and St. Louis Park as a whole. I feel that this project is being fast tracked in an effort to push it through before anyone has an opportunity to realize the enormity of the mistake that is about to be made. Please Please Please! Let us stop and consider before this mistake is made that cannot be undone, and then the only people who will be left to deal with the inevitable disastrous consequences will be the Elmwood home owners. Thank you so much for reading my very long email and your kind attention and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have about this matter. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 90 From:Jacquelyn Kramer To:"Eric Litkey" Subject:RE: Elmwood Project Date:Friday, April 3, 2020 3:47:00 PM Hi Joann, I’m glad I was able to get in touch with you. The complicating factor with the land use application for the project in question, and any other land use applications for that matter, is that the city is bound to a provision in state law that requires the city meet time deadlines for formally acting on land use applications. Specifically, council has 60 days to make a decision, with the option of administratively extending the deadline another 60 days. If we don’t meet these requirements the applications are automatically considered approved. Proposals or requests have been made to the state legislature to relax these requirements, but those haven’t gone anywhere so far. So despite our current technological limitations, staff have to hold public hearings and council sessions and provide ways for folks to comment to the best of our ability. That being said, I heard from the developer this morning that they would like to delay the public hearing, so that they can revise the plans based on neighborhood feedback. I’ll update the city website when we have a new public hearing date. Personally I’m a little pessimistic when it comes to the resolution of our current pandemic situation, so I would not be surprised if even with this delay, we will still need to hold the public hearing online rather than at city hall. But fingers crossed I’m wrong and we can get back to business as usual sooner rather than later. Stay healthy and have a good weekend! Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Eric Litkey <elitkey@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:15 PM To: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Subject: Elmwood Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacquelyn, Thank you so much for your willingness to listen to me on the phone this past week about my concerns regarding the Elmwood/UCC/PPL proposal. It was so nice to actually speak with someone instead of just email. I have listed below the email that I sent to some members of the Planning City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 91 Commission for your review. In light of the current events, I am not sure why this particular project is being so heavily fast tracked without allowing the involved parties to actually be present for debate and discussion. I have been involved with numerous Zoom meetings for work which work well when one person is leading the discussion and everyone else listens, but this is not at all conducive to the type of meeting that would otherwise be held in this situation with so many participants. I would think there are certainly more pressing matters the city could be dealing with right now. Perhaps you could shed some light on that for me? I thank you for everything you are doing for St. Louis Park through this difficult time with the added challenges of remote work and the ever changing demands. Hope you are staying safe and healthy, JoAnn Litkey My name is JoAnn Litkey; I live in the Elmwood neighborhood, and I would like a few moments of your time to discuss the proposed development at the Union Congregational Church site. The proposed development is a 4 story, 80-unit apartment building with around 130-160 bedrooms and 80 total parking spaces (this includes guest parking), that will sit directly across the alley and street from single family homes as well as the historic Jorvig park. I hope you can agree that this is clearly far too massive in scope to fit the appropriate size of the neighborhood. This building would be 3 to 4 times the height and the other surrounding homes. There would easily be 80-100 cars parked on the neighborhood streets at all times which substantially increases the likelihood of a pedestrian (my kid on a bike) involved motor vehicle accident. The additional traffic coming and going would make crossing the streets a dangerous proposition as we know that no kid actually looks both ways both bolting out into the street. As a mother of young kids, who bike and run up and down the streets, this is frankly a terrifying situation. Additionally, what are these apartment residents to do in the winter during a snow emergency and streets need to be plowed? Is the plan just to no longer plow Elmwood? The newer, narrow streets with 100+ cars parked up and down both sides of every block will make it impossible for those cars to be moved every time it snows. What about street cleaning in the fall and spring? That will never happen in the Elmwood neighborhood again with so much street parking and no possible alternative off street parking. I cannot imagine that any home owner, regardless of neighborhood, would like something of this overwhelming size to be built across the street from their own home. This project as proposed is breathtakingly shortsighted for a multitude of reasons: massively inappropriate size and scope, laughably inadequate parking, unanswered and serious safety concerns for pedestrians/kids, impossible city road maintenance, and building an apartment of the cheapest materials possible in the oldest neighborhood of St. Louis Park. The developer is expecting to have control of this property for 40 years. What exactly will be the imperative for them in 5 to 10 years to replace the failing siding, broken windows, and deterioration that happens quickly with rental property? I am begging the planning commission to stop this current proposal so that all parties involved can have the time needed to collaborate and make a thoughtful decision that will benefit all City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 92 parties involved: the current home owners in the Elmwood neighborhood, Union Congregational Church, and St. Louis Park as a whole. I feel that this project is being fast tracked in an effort to push it through before anyone has an opportunity to realize the enormity of the mistake that is about to be made. Please Please Please! Let us stop and consider before this mistake is made that cannot be undone, and then the only people who will be left to deal with the inevitable disastrous consequences will be the Elmwood home owners. Thank you so much for reading my very long email and your kind attention and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have about this matter. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 93 From:Earl Barnett III To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:3700 Alabama Union Congregation Church Date:Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:34:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, May name is Earl Barnett III, And I reside at and own 3762 Alabama Ave S, St Louis Park, Mn 55416. I’m sure you have received a lot of feed back on the proposed development. I do not support the development. This will create a traffic congestion. Our street and neighborhood is mostly a quiet one except during rush hour mornings and evenings. We would like to keep the traffic to as minimal as possible. I’m surprised that for development, that St Louis Park was chosen. There’s other places in the Twin Cities that needs more development attention like the Frog Town area, Phillips neighborhood, or North Minneapolis. These areas are begging for newer updated, modern affordable living/ development. Our area will already be over-developed by the light rail. We do not want all the traffic and noise of more people in our neighborhood. We do not want the traffic or more people in this neighborhood. During rush hour, the traffic already backs up at the lights and stop signs on Alabama. Thank you. Earl Barnett III Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 94 From:Shannon Sackrison Subject:Elmwood Neighborhood Development - Dear Planning Commissioners Date:Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:16:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! I hope this email finds you well I wanted to reach out to voice concerns with the development happening a block away from my home.... My biggest complaint is that we as a neighborhood we were not consulted or allowed to provide any input into the project until it was basically already said and done... This really saddens and angers me- this is my home and my neighborhood… I’ve had no voice or been asked to give any input into something happening a stone’s throw away from my front door. We have 3 neighbors moving already in response to what is going on and the lack of help or concern our city leaders have in helping is shameful. The scale of this proposed project is beyond anything reasonable for the lot size and is inconsistent with details in the Elmwood Land Use Study. Also, if I remember correctly UCC was a strong opponent of a project that would butt up to their property to the east because the height and density was inappropriate for the neighborhood and their historic church so seems weird they are now all about this new project in our neighborhood which totally contradicts their previous stance. The neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer because they are having financial issues, thus fast tracking a development that they would've been fighting against had this been a year or two ago, themselves. Our neighborhood went under road construction last year to narrow our roads....the thought behind that is that it will slow drivers down....great, but this development will put a HUGE strain on street parking. Its insufficient...the proposed plan only has 70 structured parking stalls which is less than 1 per unit and doesn't meet the min requirement. These roads will be flooded with street parking like uptown, crowded, hard enough in winter to plow as it is. Clearly lacks the proper parking requirement alone & thus doesn't fit with the neighborhood. Union alone is a huge contributor to the on street parking already....eliminating the parking lot they already use will then drive even MORE people to park on the streets...sound like they are expecting 75-100 off street parking daily in our area...this is insane & puts strains on parking for owners of homes currently here. The design in no way compliments the Historic Neighborhood or contributes to it... we hold 30 of the 70 historic homes in SLP....highest neighborhood concentration in SLP.. this area is HISTORIC and everything that is built here should complement this area down to the materials used to build here......the materials on the proposed building are mostly fiber cement and a splash of stone....it will put a shadow on our park and historic depot building...this is going to TOWER over our park and depot building which does not compliment or fit the area or fit what has been recommended for our area in general based on the study's/recommendations for our neighborhood. We should be mindful on anything we propose in this area otherwise why even deem this a historic neighborhood if we City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 95 don’t adhere to these recommendations. I’m hopeful that more discussions will result in a project with the proper scope, scale, parking and architectural design. PPL has acknowledge that the project is very large for the sight. If it does eventually come to you with no significant changes that balance the project for the area, we ask that you decline a project that is for the primary benefit of the church, the mortgage broker, and the developer, does not have a solution for the area as a whole, and did not embrace the neighborhood until very late in the process. Thank you! Shannon Sackrison City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 96 From:Jake Spano To:Mark Bredesen Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; rbroshat@gmail.com; Anne Mavity; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: Comments on PUD at 3700 Alabama Ave / 6027 37th St W Date:Friday, April 10, 2020 8:27:37 AM Mark and Katia- Thank you for your email regarding this project. I’m not sure if you are aware but earlier this week, after meeting with a group of residents from the neighborhood, the developers have pulled this project from the process so they can refine their proposal. Not sure what all will change but wanted you to know that. You might want to reach out to the Elmwood neighborhood association/board to learn more. Have a good day, Jake Spano Mayor St. Louis Park, MN (he/him/his) 952-928-1448 (direct) On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Bredesen <MBredesen@manulife.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To : City Council and Planning Commission, City of St Louis Park (c/o Jacquelyn Kramer) CC : Jake Spano, Mayor and Bob Broshat, President, Village in the Park Homeowner Association RE : Planned unit development from Project in Pride in Living at 3700 Alabama Ave My name is Mark Bredesen and my wife Katia and I are long-term residents of St Louis Park. We have been living at our current residence at 5900 Oxford Street #10 for 7 years which is less than one (1) block from the planned development. My wife and I strenuously disagree with the development as it is currently proposed. Our primary concern revolves around the concentration of large numbers of affordable housing units in a single location as the 4-story, 80 unit plan currently allows for. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 97 Concentrated affordable housing has been extensively tried over the past 50 years in the United States and has been a complete failure by any objective measure. Cities and municipalities that spent significant resources building concentrated affordable housing structures in the 1960s and 70s have since spent the past several decades dismantling them after experiencing overwhelmingly negative outcomes. Both Cabrini-Green in Chicago and Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis are relevant examples of the failure of a concentrated approach. Regrettably, putting large numbers of people of low socioeconomic status in immediate proximity to each other has been definitively shown to produce several negative effects, most notably significant increases in crime (including, but not limited to, violent crime and narcotics trafficking). Mixed developments, however, encompassing both affordable and market rate units, have shown disproportionately better outcomes in median income growth, educational attainment and neighborhood property values and has tended to be an uplifting contributor for residents closer to the poverty line. As you are aware, our Village in the Park development contains a mix of market/affordable (~10%) units and has been an overwhelmingly positive and local example of how this type of development can succeed. Given the widely known and acknowledged trends associated with concentrated affordable housing – of which a multitude of supportive studies are available from academic and governmental organizations, including HUD – it is both intellectually astounding and borderline negligent that our City Council in 2020 would pursue a development project as has been proposed at 3700 Alabama Avenue. While the benefits/payoffs to the Church and developer are obvious and apparent, the project ultimately benefits none of the stakeholders that “Project in Pride in Living” claims to want to help….residents of the building will suffer from the same detrimental trends seen elsewhere with concentrated affordable housing, while area residents such as myself will be exceedingly burdened with a neighborhood victimized by higher crime, unwanted density and lower quality of life. If “Project in Pride”, the Church and the City Council are genuinely interested in listening to area residents, there are two obvious and concrete steps that can be taken to adjust the project to reflect concerns expressed by us and the 20+ neighbors of ours we’ve spoken to over the past two weeks: First, the project can be reduced from 80 units/4 stories to 40 units/2 stories to fit with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, existing zoning ordinances and area traffic infrastructure. Second, the project can be modified to include no more than 20% affordable housing (and no less than 80% market rate housing) which will ensure that the affordable housing residents have a chance to succeed and, hopefully, one day graduate into market rate tenants. These are reasonable, prudent compromises that let everyone come away from this project a “winner” and contribute to the long term City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 98 viability of our very successful and diverse existing neighborhood character. Respectfully, Mark Bredesen Katia Bredesen 5900 Oxford Street #10 Mark R. Bredesen SVP - GO Performance Measurement Attribution Risk Manulife Investment Management E mbredesen@manulife.com | O 1 (617) 572-5182 197 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116 <image001.jpg> STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient, please: (1) notify me immediately by replying to this message; (2) do not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce any part of the message or any attachment; and (3) destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 99 From:Mark Bredesen To:Jake Spano Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; rbroshat@gmail.com; Anne Mavity; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:RE: Comments on PUD at 3700 Alabama Ave / 6027 37th St W Date:Friday, April 10, 2020 4:42:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jake, Thanks for getting back to us, and we were pleased to learn that the developer has pulled the project in its current form (after sending my email, I spoke on the phone last night with Bob Broshat who is the President of the Village in the Park association). Bob and I agreed that a positive next step would be for Anne (and yourself, if available) to come meet with the residents of Village in the Park in a formal meeting in one of our condo buildings. I believe that all of the ~200 people in our community are reasonable and willing to make compromises to see this project succeed, but we also are the largest group in direct proximity to the development and will be disproportionately affected by any negative outcome. While comments on the record via email are helpful, I think an in-person meeting will help Anne and yourself understand really how strongly people feel about this project. Together with Village in the Park and the Elmwood Association, I believe it was quite apparent that there were serious concerns about the project as it was proposed from the local neighborhood so we’re glad to see this project back at the drawing board. Hopefully, we can all work together to produce a positive, long term result. Lastly, one last point about me – in my 43 years, this is the first time I’ve ever written a letter to a mayor or city council with a concern about anything which hopefully illustrates the importance of this matter to regular folks like us. Thanks Jake and best wishes for a wonderful weekend. Mark From: Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 9:28 AM To: Mark Bredesen <MBredesen@manulife.com> Cc: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org>; rbroshat@gmail.com; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org>; Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments on PUD at 3700 Alabama Ave / 6027 37th St W CAUTION This email is from an external sender, be cautious with links and attachments. Mark and Katia- Thank you for your email regarding this project. I’m not sure if you are aware but earlier this week, after meeting with a group of residents from the neighborhood, the developers have pulled this project from the process so they can refine their proposal. Not sure what all will change but wanted City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 100 you to know that. You might want to reach out to the Elmwood neighborhood association/board to learn more. Have a good day, Jake Spano Mayor St. Louis Park, MN (he/him/his) 952-928-1448 (direct) On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Bredesen <MBredesen@manulife.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To : City Council and Planning Commission, City of St Louis Park (c/o Jacquelyn Kramer) CC : Jake Spano, Mayor and Bob Broshat, President, Village in the Park Homeowner Association RE : Planned unit development from Project in Pride in Living at 3700 Alabama Ave My name is Mark Bredesen and my wife Katia and I are long-term residents of St Louis Park. We have been living at our current residence at 5900 Oxford Street #10 for 7 years which is less than one (1) block from the planned development. My wife and I strenuously disagree with the development as it is currently proposed. Our primary concern revolves around the concentration of large numbers of affordable housing units in a single location as the 4-story, 80 unit plan currently allows for. Concentrated affordable housing has been extensively tried over the past 50 years in the United States and has been a complete failure by any objective measure. Cities and municipalities that spent significant resources building concentrated affordable housing City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 101 structures in the 1960s and 70s have since spent the past several decades dismantling them after experiencing overwhelmingly negative outcomes. Both Cabrini-Green in Chicago and Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis are relevant examples of the failure of a concentrated approach. Regrettably, putting large numbers of people of low socioeconomic status in immediate proximity to each other has been definitively shown to produce several negative effects, most notably significant increases in crime (including, but not limited to, violent crime and narcotics trafficking). Mixed developments, however, encompassing both affordable and market rate units, have shown disproportionately better outcomes in median income growth, educational attainment and neighborhood property values and has tended to be an uplifting contributor for residents closer to the poverty line. As you are aware, our Village in the Park development contains a mix of market/affordable (~10%) units and has been an overwhelmingly positive and local example of how this type of development can succeed. Given the widely known and acknowledged trends associated with concentrated affordable housing – of which a multitude of supportive studies are available from academic and governmental organizations, including HUD – it is both intellectually astounding and borderline negligent that our City Council in 2020 would pursue a development project as has been proposed at 3700 Alabama Avenue. While the benefits/payoffs to the Church and developer are obvious and apparent, the project ultimately benefits none of the stakeholders that “Project in Pride in Living” claims to want to help….residents of the building will suffer from the same detrimental trends seen elsewhere with concentrated affordable housing, while area residents such as myself will be exceedingly burdened with a neighborhood victimized by higher crime, unwanted density and lower quality of life. If “Project in Pride”, the Church and the City Council are genuinely interested in listening to area residents, there are two obvious and concrete steps that can be taken to adjust the project to reflect concerns expressed by us and the 20+ neighbors of ours we’ve spoken to over the past two weeks: First, the project can be reduced from 80 units/4 stories to 40 units/2 stories to fit with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, existing zoning ordinances and area traffic infrastructure. Second, the project can be modified to include no more than 20% affordable housing (and no less than 80% market rate housing) which will ensure that the affordable housing residents have a chance to succeed and, hopefully, one day graduate into market rate tenants. These are reasonable, prudent compromises that let everyone come away from this project a “winner” and contribute to the long term viability of our very successful and diverse existing neighborhood character. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 102 Respectfully, Mark Bredesen Katia Bredesen 5900 Oxford Street #10 Mark R. Bredesen SVP - GO Performance Measurement Attribution RiskManulife Investment Management E mbredesen@manulife.com | O 1 (617) 572-5182 197 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116 <image001.jpg> STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient, please: (1) notify me immediately by replying to this message; (2) do not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce any part of the message or any attachment; and (3) destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient, please: (1) notify me immediately by replying to this message; (2) do not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce any part of the message or any attachment; and (3) destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 103 From:Michelle Weisser To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Elmwood neighborhood proposed UCC project Date:Monday, April 13, 2020 5:38:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am a home owner in the Brooklawns neighborhood. I am very concerned about the historic Elmwood neighborhood with the proposed project at the UCC site. First of all, let the current situation in our world be an ever present reminder why multi-unit housing is not a safe avenue for the citizens of the metro to live in. As a nurse, I can tell you diseases such as Covid-19, which is spread via airborne, droplet and contact, has been shown to rapidly spread throughout an entire building if one person is infected. Just look at the current problem in New York City. Next, the beautiful history of St Louis Park must be preserved. If we do not preserve the oldest neighborhood then what good does history do for any of us?? The proposed project does not fit the current historic character of the Elmwood neighborhood. The proposed project is a massive size and is slated to be built with the cheapest possible materials. Thirdly, as a neighbor who walks, drives and bikes the Elmwood neighborhood, we will not be safe with all the traffic, and the on-street parking this will generate. We choose to live here and not in Minneapolis or St Paul for less congestion and more space and safety while we walk, bike and drive. Lastly and most importantly, please do not take away our rights as homeowners to be heard and our opinions respected. Elmwood neighborhood is the oldest and most desired place to raise families; please do not destroy that because one church has financial difficulties. Sincerely, A very concerned SLP resident Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 104 From:Karen Barton To:Sean Walther; Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:FW: PPL development in Elmwood neighborhood Date:Monday, April 27, 2020 8:53:08 AM FYI From: Tim Brausen <tbrausen@stlouispark.org> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:31 PM To: Janice Goldstein <janice.l.goldstein@gmail.com> Cc: Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org>; Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Subject: Re: PPL development in Elmwood neighborhood Ms. Goldstein, thank you for your note on this proposal. By copy of this email, I am sharing your note with our Community Development Director and City Manager so that it is a part of our official record relating to the proposal. I have been generally supportive of this proposal, though it has not yet been formally presented to the City Council. I understand there will still be community meetings and a public hearing before formal action on the proposal is taken. As always, we’ll try to do what’s best for the community. Regards, Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member Telephone: 952-451-8492 Sent from my iPad On Apr 24, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Janice Goldstein <janice.l.goldstein@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Tim, I’m writing in support of the planned development by Project for Pride in Living and the Union Congregational Church in the Elmwood neighborhood. The lack of affordable housing has reached crisis proportions for several years now. And the current Covid-19 pandemic has exposed even further the challenges of low income households to pay for rents and feed their families. Most of these households are minorities or single parents who work low wage jobs. Our city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan states, “Housing disparities exist among different groups of people, both in the city and the region. In order for St. Louis Park to be a leader in racial equity and inclusion, the city must examine all housing decisions and policies through a racial equity lens.” 88% of all African American residents in St. Louis City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 105 Park are renters. The 2040 Plan further states, “Since 1980 the city’s population has grown approximately 10%, adding approximately 4,500 people to the community. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and a corresponding increase in housing prices and rents. As a result, housing units that were once affordable no longer are, and less housing options are available for low-income residents in the city and the metro area.” With the nonprofit PLACE backing away from their long-planned development that was to include fifty affordable apartments, we desperately need the PPL development in our city. PPL has developments in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Robbinsdale, New Hope and Hopkins. But nothing in St. Louis Park. Scroll down on their web page https://www.ppl- inc.org/ppl-properties to see all their properties. Please support the Project for Pride and Living development in the Elmwood neighborhood. We desperately need more affordable housing in St. Louis Park. Affordable housing improves health as families don’t have to choose between paying rent or buying healthy food or paying for dental and medical expenses. And safe and stable housing reduces stress on families and children, and children do better in school. We are all in this together. Sincerely, Janice Goldstein 4730 Park Commons Drive St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 106 From:Sean Walther To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:FW: Follow-up to yesterday"s call on Union Park Flats Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:33:35 PM Importance:High Sean Walther (he/him/his) Planning and Zoning Supervisor | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.924.2574 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. Respond now to the census at 2020census.gov. It is easy, safe and important! From: toneil@doughertymarkets.com <toneil@doughertymarkets.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:22 PM To: Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Cc: Sean Walther <swalther@stlouispark.org> Subject: Follow-up to yesterday's call on Union Park Flats Importance: High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Tom: Thanks for your time yesterday to talk about Union Park Flats and the letter from six Elmwood neighborhood residents regarding Councilmember Anne Mavity. I understand that you have quite a challenge striking a balance between the larger forces of development and change, and the desires of residents to see things stay the same or progress much more slowly. I appreciate your calm, measured approach in trying to hear all perspectives, to help foster a path that achieves a workable compromise for all. I wanted to follow-up with you with a bit more information, and my perspective. First, as I mentioned yesterday, I have known Anne in my industry for somewhere near 20 years, and I have always found her actions to be very thoughtful, of the highest integrity, and never for self- benefit. Anne has been a true leader for the full affordable housing industry in Minnesota, and she seeks achievements at the broad levels of policy, advocacy/awareness, and expansion of funding for production, housing preservation, and service delivery for the entire industry. Her professional focus is not at a specific project level and it makes no sense that she would seek or claim any professional accomplishment from a particular project gaining local government approval. It’s simply outside of her area of focus and intention. Frankly, she would likely lose credibility in the industry if people thought she were focused on specific projects (“why not mine?”) and not focused on advancing broader industry issues, the role for which she was hired. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 107 Second, I wanted to address the issue of the Elmwood neighborhood’s focus on the 2003 design document for the vision of the Union Park Flats parcel. It’s very important to state that this plan, while well-intentioned and well-researched at the time, provides a severely outdated vision for what is happening now in the development industry and housing market. Since that plan was finished 17 years ago, the broad view of what should happened with transit-oriented development (TOD) sites has radically changed due to the following forces (all of which I strongly understand from my professional work): The emergence of condominium demand in 2002-2006 with roughly 5,000 new units added in the Twin Cities at that time; this was early proof-of-concept that a significant portion of the market seeks higher-density living in changing urban settings. The opening of fixed-rail transit in the Twin Cities, starting with the Blue Line LRT in Minneapolis in June 2004. Since this time, the development pattern at TOD sites has solidified and been mostly perfected (economically, design-wise) at decidedly higher densities of 50+ units per acre. The collapse of the housing market starting in about 2007, which drove many households back into rental housing at higher levels/percentages that have been sustained since then. The large rise in multifamily demand and construction. Over the past decade, close to 50,000 new rental units were built in the Twin Cities, signalling a fundamental shift toward higher- density living. Prior to the coronavirus, the Twin Cities apartment vacancy rate was 3.1% (YE 2019), one of the lowest such rates in the country. Strong interest in living in, or closer to, the urban core. Minneapolis and St. Paul achieved strong population growth over the past ten years after many decades of decline. Many first- ring suburbs saw a resurgence as well, through redevelopment (no better example than SLP!). Great success of TOD rental housing developments of at least 4 stories in height. In the past ten years in the 7-county metro area, approximately 16,500 new rental units in 125 buildings opened within ½-mile from a rail station platform for the Green Line LRT, Blue Line LRT or Northstar Commuter rail. The average height for these buildings was 6.36 stories (above ground), with 82% of the buildings (103 of 125) at 4 stories above ground or higher. The emergence of climate change as a leading issue that affects consumer choice for housing locations and styles. A large proportion of the housing market now wants to live in areas with short commutes to work, less reliance on cars, in closer-in locations in the central cities and first-ring suburbs, with many amenities within walking distance. Think DT Minneapolis, West End, Southdale. (I have maps that clearly show this.) Novel coronavirus-19. The demand for affordably-priced rental housing is forecast to skyrocket, unfortunately, due to the severe economic effects of the response to the virus. Developments such as Union Park Flats will be needed more than ever. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 108 PPL’s design for Union Park Flats is more than appropriate for a TOD site that is 1/6th mile (~850 feet) from an LRT station platform. Frankly, it could be easily argued that 2-4 stories in height with only 68 units represents an underutilization of the parcel, especially when compared to other TOD sites that have been developed in the Twin Cities in recent years. In my opinion, PPL has made a big effort to accommodate the neighborhood through a reduction in building height, a 13,000+-square- foot reduction in building size, and a 15% reduction in unit count at Union Park Flats. Additional concessions will render the project unworkable economically and financially for PPL (a wonderful housing provider) and the church (an 80-year great member of the Elmwood neighborhood). I hope that this note provides a clear perspective and is helpful to you. I have data to back up my above assertions. By all means, feel free to call or email me with any questions that you have. My cell phone number is 952-564-0677. Also, I should mention that I am a 22-year resident of St. Louis Park (Browndale Park) with my wife and two kids, and my wife and I have been heavily involved as volunteers in the public schools, youth sports and other youth activities, a City commision, and overall civic life. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, Tom. Regards, Tom Thomas G. O'Neil Vice President of Market Development Dougherty Mortgage LLC 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-317-2122 Phone 612-317-2125 Fax toneil@doughertymarkets.com ______________________________________________________ This E-mail and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorized to read, copy or use the E-mail or any attachment. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender by return E-mail and then destroy it. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 109 From:S L ZIFF To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:RE: 2020 Census update Date:Friday, May 1, 2020 4:24:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kramer, I am adding my name in support of the planned development by Project for Pride in Living and the Union Congregational Church in the Elmwood neighborhood. The lack of affordable housing has reached crisis proportions for several years now. And the current Covid 19 pandemic has exposed even further the challenges of low income households to pay for rents and feed their families. Most of these households are minorities or single parents who work low wage jobs. 88% of all African American residents in St. Louis Park are renters. As our city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes addressing housing disparities in dealing with racial equity it is important we continue to develop affordable housing. The 2040 Plan further states, “Since 1980 the city’s population has grown approximately 10%, adding approximately 4,500 people to the community. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and a corresponding increase in housing prices and rents. As a result, housing units that were once affordable no longer are, and less housing options are available for low-income residents in the city and the metro area.” With the nonprofit PLACE backing away from their long-planned development that was to include fifty affordable apartments, we desperately need the PPL development in our city. Please support the Project for Pride and Living development in the Elmwood neighborhood. We desperately need more affordable housing in St. Louis Park. Affordable housing improves health as families don’t have to choose between paying rent or buying healthy food or paying for dental and medical expenses. And safe and stable housing reduces stress on families and children, and children do better in school. We are all in this together. I would prefer their plan to be able to add back the three or even more bedrooms to support families. Sincerely, Stephen Ziff {he/him/his) 2930 Monterey Avenue St. Louis Park, 55416 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 110 From:Roxanne Lange To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; pastorbarb13@gmail.com Subject:Project with PPL and Union Congregational Church Date:Saturday, May 2, 2020 4:44:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kramer, We writing in support of the planned development by Project for Pride in Living and the Union Congregational Church in the Elmwood neighborhood. There is a crisis in affordable housing and Covid-19 has truly changed the landscape. And challenges of low income households to pay for rents and/or find affordable housing while feeding their families seems like an impossible goal. As Janice Goldstein, St. Louis Park Community Housing Team, pointed out to our Team the city’s 2040 Plan states, “Since 1980 the city’s population has grown approximately 10%, adding approximately 4,500 people to the community. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and a corresponding increase in housing prices and rents. As a result, housing units that were once affordable no longer are, and less housing options are available for low-income residents in the city and the metro area.” With the nonprofit PLACE backing away from their long-planned development that was to include fifty affordable apartments, we desperately need the PPL development in our city. PPL has been helping communities to recognize and provide critically needed housing for low-income individuals and families. Where are these people to go? St. Louis Park as a whole, not broken into neighborhood communities should and need to step up and stand for fairness for all. Safe and stable housing reduces stress on families and children, and adults become good citizens, while their children do better in school. Today more than ever we are all in this together. Sincerely, Roxanne & Richard Lange STLP Community Housing Team Members City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 111 From:Wagner, Mary D. (MD) To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Rachel Harris; Barbara Martin; chris.wilson@ppl-inc.org Subject:Letter of support for the Union--PPL affordable housing project Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 1:45:43 PM Attachments:Union housing letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kramer, Please see my attached letter of support for the proposed affordable housing project at Alabama and Oxford. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks so much, Mary Wagner Mary D. Wagner, MD UMN-Methodist Hospital Family Medicine Residency Program 6600 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 100 St Louis Park MN, 55426 Ph 952-993-3635 Fax 952-993-6798 Email mary.wagner@parknicollet.com City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 112 From:Deborah Wells To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union UCC/PPL proposed project Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:50:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacqueline, In 2016, the Minnesota Housing Partnership reported that the rising cost of housing accompanied by stagnant incomes of many renters, contributed to increased numbers of cost burdened households, particularly among those in Minnesota with lower incomes. Within the past four years, St. Louis Park has lost more than 500 affordable units when Meadowbrook was sold and remodeled. In 2018, the City commissioned a report from Maxfield Consulting on its current and future housing needs that noted a potential demand for 3,700 new housing units through 2030. In its recommendations, the Maxfield report noted that between the present and 2030, 409 affordable rental units are needed in the City. Union Congregational Church in partnership with Project for Pride in Living is proposing to build a 68-unit affordable-rent apartment on land adjacent to the church. In response to input from several neighborhood meetings they've convened, they've made concessions to the footprint, number of units and the height of the building. As an original member of the St. Louis Park Community Housing Team, I urge you to support this project. Our group is unanimous in our advocacy that this project go forward. Maxfield's 2018 report recommended the City plan for multiple multifamily affordable rental housing that would target residents at 50-60% AMI. The Union Congregational project is targeting just this population. From 2016 through 2018, in its last two years of existence, I was the Coordinator for the Meadowbrook Collaborative that was sponsored in part, by the City. I had the heart wrenching experience of supporting families who lost their affordable housing when Meadowbrook cycled through its renovations and precipitously raised its rent in 2017. Unfortunately, for most of these families, they had to leave the City to find affordable rental rates. I have many stories of these families' hardships due to the loss of their affordable housing at Meadowbrook. Please -- let's welcome them back into City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 113 the community by approving this project. I'm available to answer any questions or provide more information. Thank you. Debbie Wells -- Debbie Wells Coordinator SLP Family Services Collaborative St. Louis Park Schools 6715 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 https://slpfamilyservices.org/ O - 952-928-6418 C - 414-243-6673 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 114 From:kurt@huntermarionettes.com To:Jacquelyn Kramer; Jake Spano; Anne Mavity Cc:kurt@huntermarionettes.com Subject:Support for proposed Project for Pride in Living affordable housing project Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 8:30:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This letter is to voice strong support for the affordable housing project proposed by Project for Pride in Living with Union Congregational United Church of Christ. My wife and I have lived in St. Louis Park, three blocks from Union UCC, for 27 years. We love this neighborhood and can’t imagine living anywhere else. About ten years ago, we joined Union UCC. We were attracted by the open and welcoming community made up of people with passion for improving the lives of others. We have been similarly impressed with Project for Pride in living, a highly respected charitable organization with a 45-year history of working for affordable housing in the Twin Cities. In that time PPL has improved the lives of thousands of people. PPL currently owns and operates over 1500 units of housing. They have a proven track record in the area of affordable housing. The project’s location in our beautiful, friendly neighborhood is close to transit, parks and trails, shopping and medical services making it a great location for affordable housing. The need for more affordable housing is undeniable and it is clear that this project can make a significant impact. Unfortunately, the potential impact is at odds with the desire of some people in the immediate neighborhood for a scaled back project. A smaller project will serve fewer people and have less of an impact on the problem. I trust that in balancing those concerns the opportunity to do significant good will not be lost. Sincerely, Kurt and Kathy Hunter 5918 W. 39th St. St. Louis Park, MN City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 115 From:Anne Mavity To:kurt@huntermarionettes.com Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Jake Spano Subject:Re: Support for proposed Project for Pride in Living affordable housing project Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:13:20 PM Hi Kurt, Thank you for your note. I’m so grateful for your advocacy for affordable housing in St. Louis Park. Because of my day job at the Minnesota Housing Partnership and the advocacy work we do with PPL and other affordable housing providers, I will be recusing myself from voting on this project. Thankfully, there are six others on the council who can vote on it and would benefit from hearing from you! Best, Anne Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On May 5, 2020, at 8:30 AM, "kurt@huntermarionettes.com" <kurt@huntermarionettes.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This letter is to voice strong support for the affordable housing project proposed by Project for Pride in Living with Union Congregational United Church of Christ. My wife and I have lived in St. Louis Park, three blocks from Union UCC, for 27 years. We love this neighborhood and can’t imagine living anywhere else. About ten years ago, we joined Union UCC. We were attracted by the open and welcoming community made up of people with passion for improving the lives of others. We have been similarly impressed with Project for Pride in living, a highly respected charitable organization with a 45-year history of working for affordable housing in the Twin Cities. In that time PPL has improved the lives of thousands of people. PPL currently owns and operates over 1500 units of housing. They have a proven track record in the area of affordable housing. The project’s location in our beautiful, friendly neighborhood is close to transit, parks and trails, shopping and medical services making it a great location for affordable housing. The need for more affordable housing is undeniable and it is clear that this project can make a significant impact. Unfortunately, the potential impact is at odds with the desire of some people in the immediate neighborhood for a scaled back project. A smaller project will serve fewer people and have less of an impact on the problem. I trust that in balancing those concerns the opportunity to do significant good will not be lost. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 116 Sincerely, Kurt and Kathy Hunter 5918 W. 39th St. St. Louis Park, MN City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 117 From:Liz Stroder To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Michele Schnitker; Marney Olson; Alicia Sojourner; Darius Gray; Tom Harmening Subject:UCC/PPL Development Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 9:32:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kramer, I have been a resident of St. Louis Park since 2008. I am also a renter. As a Black woman living in a country that consistently ignores the inequities marginalized communities experience, it is deeply dismaying to live in a community where those with privilege do not use their power to advance equity for those who lack agency and resources to do so. I ask that the needs of those who lack the power to have their needs be heard be centered in a city that has vowed a commitment to equity and inclusion, including our critical housing needs in the city we call our home, St. Louis Park. There are many marginalized groups in SLP that live in rental housing, the vast majority of Black and POC residents in SLP are renters, as well as many members of the disabled and senior communities. These groups are already economically disenfranchised in the workplace, due to racism, ageism or ableism, leading to many of these groups being underpaid or underemployed. Occupational segregation has forced many Black and Hispanic people into low wage-earning jobs; jobs that have been lost or increased their exposure to the virus during this pandemic. Those same low wage positions have also increased the likelihood of individuals and families being forced to live in residentially segregated communities, exposing them to food deserts and environmental pollution that endangers their health. While many with economic privilege claim that the answer to the wage gap is higher education, studies show higher learning does not resolve the racial wage gap, especially when both race and gender are considered (American Community Survey, 2016). I myself learned of its impact on my own earnings, when a white male former co-worker, conscious of racial and gender wage disparities, revealed that he was being paid $5,000 more than me, despite my greater experience in our field, having a job title two pay grades above his own and an advanced degree. Racial bias has resulted in a greater need for Black and POC communities to need affordable housing, so they can meet their families’ basic needs, including access to safe communities, affordable fresh food and good schools for their children. We are in desperate need of those with power to recognize and answer those needs, instead of widening the economic barriers created by systematic oppression. United UCC and Project for Pride and Living is trying to help answer those needs in our community by building affordable housing in SLP. When I first moved to SLP in 2008, my low wages qualified me for childcare assistance that I could not obtain as the long waiting list of other families in need exceeded the limited funds. It took more than a year for my number to finally be called. Had it not been for a neighbor informing me of STEP to help with food insecurity at that time, I am not sure how my child and I would have managed, as most of my monthly income went to housing and childcare costs. After moving to another City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 118 apartment complex, my rent began to outpace my annual job increases in 2015. While I assumed some of this was due to residual effects of the housing bubble still driving homeowners to rent, discussions with my property manager revealed that it was instead due to market rate increases caused by the continued development of luxury apartments. Sienna Apartment Homes was being built just down the street from my complex at the time, where a one-bedroom unit currently goes from $1,440-$2,645 a month. I live in an apartment building built in 1968. There are no amenities or unit upgrades, no heated garage, playground or work out facility, not even a party room. This year, my rent increase for a two- bedroom unit was $100. 40% of my income goes to rent alone, while the recommended rent to income ratio is 30%. I am rent overburdened, as are my senior and disabled neighbors on fixed incomes and my neighbors who work in retail and the restaurant industry. Several residents in the apartment complex across the street from me have complained about their own rental increases, which were much steeper than my building experienced. Unless we are ready to move further away from our jobs and move our children to other school districts, we are forced to cut corners on basic necessities, pick up additional hours, or additional jobs that will mean even less time with our families and this was prior to COVID-19’s devastation. We are in the midst of a pandemic where, while Black people make up only 14% of the population nationally, they make up one-third of the deaths from Coronavirus. Hispanics and Indigenous communities, groups that are also marginalized, are also bearing the worst of the unemployment, illness and death in the current crisis. Lack of safe and affordable housing is contributing to these dire statistics among marginalized communities. The affordable housing needs of these communities deserve to be a priority. While I fall below middle class and am above the poverty line, I and many of the SLP renters that I know represent the profile of families PPL’s project would serve. While I hope SLP will eventually increase efforts to meet the housing needs of those at and below the poverty line as well, I ask that you approve this project to aid current SLP renters that are being priced out of the community. While large luxury apartment projects with only a small fraction of units being dedicated to affordability continue to be approved, projects of greater need, serving renters who cannot afford luxury rents fall by the wayside. This is not reflective of the purported values of St. Louis Park. I heard first-hand what some within the Elmwood community think of renters in need of affordable housing at neighborhood meeting. I witnessed many speakers call renters “dangerous criminals” who would destroy the Elmwood community and further alleged they would threaten their children’s safety. Others suggested there would be drug problems and that the building would be an eyesore depleting their property values. It was difficult hearing vitriol directed at SLP renters, knowing that those shared ideas were stereotyping based on bias against renters. The people demonized by the statements are my neighbors and the people that were demonizing them are also my neighbors. Quite honestly, it was a wake-up call for me to learn that I, and those like me, are not accepted as part of SLP. I used to brag to my friends that live outside of SLP about how much I love living in an inclusive community and about the “All Are Welcome Here” signs displayed in homeowner’s yards. Too often, the loudest voices heard are those that already hold power and would rather insulate, than share some of that power with those in need of a fair chance. PPL and Union UCC have already adapted this project multiple times to make concessions to the demands being made. Those in opposition to this project clearly lack perspective or understanding of what we City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 119 stand to lose if this project does not move forward. Saint Louis Park is my and the rest of the rental communities home too! Do we and our families have no value in our community, unless we own a home, or can afford a luxury apartment? Do we, especially those of us belonging to underserved racial minorities, not belong here, despite SLP’s commitment to leading on issues of racial equity and inclusion? Are there communities here that are permitted to exclude those beneath a certain tax bracket? I am hoping that I will not have to prepare my son in the near future to say goodbye to his friends and his community. Not because I decided to move to another area for a job opportunity or to purchase a home, but rather because I cannot afford to call this community home. Economic walls limiting access are being built around this community that will continue to force those who fall below SLP’s middle class out of it. This will not change unless those in positions of leadership take action. I ask that you allow this project to move forward and increase efforts to make SLP an inclusive, affordable community for marginalized residents who have been overlooked for far too long. Thank you. Elizabeth Stroder City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 120 From:Kirsten Brekke Albright To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Margaret Rog; Anne Mavity; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Tom Harmening; Darius Gray; Alicia Sojourner; Karen Barton; Michele Schnitker; Marney Olson; Jake Spano Subject:UCC/PPL Project Date:Friday, May 8, 2020 10:20:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Kramer, I am writing as a concerned citizen of St. Louis Park and founding member of the St. Louis Park Community Housing Team. My husband, Dan and I were drawn to this community for its diversity, stated priorities of equity and inclusion and engagement of citizens. Since moving here in 1994, we have been involved with almost every aspect of life in St. Louis Park, as volunteers, parents, participants, members and benefactors. We are proud of our community and are compelled to make our voices heard when change is needed. As many have shared, experts in the housing industry have identified affordable housing as our most critical need now and into the future. Safe, affordable housing is vital to the stability, health and wealth of a family. Contrary to a common belief, renters in St. Louis Park and our surrounding community live in their apartments on average 6-9 years. Unfortunately, when rents continue to rise, many SLP families have been forced to move. Based on known demographics, most of these families represent minority populations, which means, we are creating a less diverse community when we neglect to make affordable housing a priority. While the vitality of any city is based on a diverse portfolio of plans and development, we must stay true to our commitment of racial equity and inclusion. Based on the 2018 Maxfield report, St. Louis Park must make affordable housing a greater priority, with a projected need of 3,700 affordable apartment units to meet the economic profile of our neighbors needing housing. The UCC and Project for Pride and Living project is an excellent opportunity to advance the initiative of affordable housing. I understand many, significant concessions have been made to appease the neighbors of Elmwood. While many of their concerns may have merit, I hope the leadership of our community are moved by our city’s stated values and initiatives rather than an outcry of “Not in my backyard” neighbors. In the infinite wisdom and words of the late Paul Wellstone, lets remember, “We all do better when we all do better”. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 121 Sincerely, Kirsten Brekke Albright City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 122 4 3 2 6 W o o dd a le Ave. St. Louis Park, MN 55424 April 22, 2020 Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Dear Ms. Kramer, As a long-time resident of St. Louis Park, I am writing in support of the proposed Housing Project by Union Congregational Church in the Elmwood Neighborhood of St Louis Park I am very pleased that the Church would consider the advancement of affordable housing for our City, and that they are working with Project for Pride in Living, a well known and experienced nonprofit developer. Union Congregational Church has been extraordinarily open to comments from the Elmwood Neighborhood, and has accordingly taken steps to modify the plans for the proposed structure in the following ways: reducing the number of units from 80 to 68, with commensurate parking spaces; increasing the set-back, and reducing the height to 2.5 stories on the Brunswick side. I believe this demonstrates several quantifiable responses to requests from the Elmwood neighborhood. I believe this Project helps to address a deep need for affordable housing in our community. Residents at this building will be from a variety of income levels ( various percentages of Area Mean Income). The rapidly dwindling supply of naturally occurring affordable housing underscores the need for projects like this. It is my firm belief that all the cities in the metro area need to increase their stock of affordable housing, and St. Louis Park needs to do its part in this metro-wide effort. In summary, in order for St. Louis Park to continue to be an open, welcoming, and diverse Community, we need more housing projects of this type. I hope the City will support, encourage, and facilitate the continued development of affordable housing, including this Project at Union Congregational Church. I would be very proud to have this Project as part of our wonderful St. Louis Park City. Thank you for all you do for the Planning and Housing in St Louis Park. You are an important part of helping to make a Community we can all be proud of. u ®h. Sincerely, Barb Patterson City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 123 From:Sean Walther To:Anne Mavity; Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:RE: Union Congregational Church Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 9:27:55 AM Mr. Fuchs. The appropriate density of development on the property is one of the policy questions posed in this application. You described the density limitations of the present St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan land use guidance in your March email message. The applicants, not the city, have requested high density residential development of the parcel. The applicants initially proposed 80 units total on the property which is about 67 units per acre. The city does not dictate what the applicant can request and we must respond to the formal applications within 60-120 days under State Statutes. City staff have not made a recommendation regarding the proposed application, yet. City staff will make our recommendation to the planning commission in our staff report for the scheduled public hearing and meeting to be held on June 3, 2020. Notice for that meeting will sent out at least 10 days before the hearing. The planning commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the city council. The city council will make the final decision. The applicant is amending their initial proposal to a degree which will reduce the proposed density of the development. The proposal is expected to remain in the range of the high density residential category. The city will post revised information about the development on the development projects page of the city website by no later than Thursday (May 21, 2020) with the latest information. The staff report for the planning commission meeting will be posted to the planning commission webpage on the city website by the afternoon of Friday, May 29, 2020. The best point of contact for procedural questions is Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner. She has been copied on these emails and her office number is 952.928.1375. I hope this information is helpful as you track this application through the city review process. Sean Walther (he/him/his) Planning and Zoning Supervisor | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.924.2574 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. Respond now to the census at 2020census.gov. It is easy, safe and important! From: Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:18 PM To: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) <BRFuchs@express-scripts.com> Cc: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org>; Sean Walther <swalther@stlouispark.org> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 124 Subject: Re: Union Congregational Church Sean Walthers is best positioned to address your question. Anne Mavity Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2020, at 3:10 PM, Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) <BRFuchs@express-scripts.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Is it possible to get a response from the city as far as what level of development is okay on this site? Has the city developed a density level that they would be willing to bring to the council for their approval? Thanks, Brian Fuchs From: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 3:37 PM To: amavity@stlouispark.org Cc: jkramer@stlouispark.org; swalther@stlouispark.org Subject: FW: Union Congregational Church Hi Anne, I want to thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting earlier this week and listening to the neighborhood’s concerns about this proposed project. I was planning to talk at the meeting, but as it got longer I decided I would just write this email instead. Just as we heard from most in attendance at the meeting, I also struggle with the density of this project. This development is not located on a main/busy street such or in an area where development of this density would be expected. It is instead located in an area next to single family residential housing. I understand the church’s need for additional revenue, but simply because 80 units is what is required for them to make enough profit on the sale of the property does not mean that 80 units is the appropriate density. The question then becomes what is the appropriate density for a location such as this. Luckily, the city of St. Louis Park has recently conducted a study on a building site very similar to this location City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 125 (Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study) that should provide everyone with appropriate guidelines to follow. The Eliot study was also about a development where a school/community site was being redeveloped and it even talks about being in an area with single family homes, a church across the street, and nearby commercial and industrial uses. The apartments that opened on the Eliot site opened less than five years ago, so this study should still be relevant today. The study can still be found on the city’s website. I would attach it, but I suspect attachments are not opened. It is remarkable to read this study and find how much it can be applied to the Union Congregation Church (UCC)site. Findings of the study conclude that medium density residential of six to 30 units per acre should be built on the site and that anything built should complement the existing scale and character of the surrounding homes. The study notes that on the Eliot site this would equate to 26 to 129 units. Based on other information on the city website I found that the final design of the apartments built on at the Eliot location was 138 units which equates to 32 units per acre, so just slightly over the top range of the study. Further, the apartments on the Eliot site are two stories, and step up to three stories in some locations. The proposed four stories on the UCC site is simply too much. Based on my below correspondence with Jacquelyn within the planning division of SLP, the UCC site is 1.19 acres. At 30 units per acre as the Eliot study recommends, this would result in a development of 36 units on the UCC site. It would come up to 38 units on the UCC site at the ending 32 units per acre of what was finally built on the Eliot site. The proposal for the UCC site is 67 units per acre, which is over double these densities. This was shocking to me that the city is even entertaining the thoughts of a development that is this dense. Why are we even having to attend neighborhood meetings to defend our neighborhood from this development? The city should be applying such studies themselves and making sure they do not even get to the point where a neighborhood meeting is required. The city has recently gone through a heated debate about bike lanes in the city (Southwest Bikeway Improvements) and one of the themes used to approve that work was around treating that neighborhood the same as previous neighborhoods were treated when similar initiatives were proposed. Please treat the Elmwood neighborhood the same as the neighborhood around the Eliot site was treated for proposed residential development. I ask that you please consider these numbers as this proposal is voted on by the city and ensure that this development stays at 30 units per acre. I also ask that you please read the Eliot site study and that the study is attached to any agenda items reviewed by the city council or planning commission. Please also include my thoughts and concerns with other members of both the city council and the planning commission and that those members are informed about the Eliot site study. The study should clearly help define what the density of development of the UCC site should be. Thanks, Brian (an Elmwood neighborhood resident) City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 126 From: Jacquelyn Kramer [mailto:jkramer@stlouispark.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:33 AM To: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Union Congregational Church Good morning Brian, The proposed apartment building lot would be 1.19 acres. So with 80 units it would have a density of 67 units per acre. One of the requests from the developer is a comprehensive plan amendment, which would reguide the proposed parcel from the civic designation to high density residential, which allows up to 75 units per acre. Please let me know if you have any other questions about the proposal. Thanks. Jacquelyn Kramer (she/her/hers) Associate Planner | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952.928.1375 www.stlouispark.org Experience LIFE in the Park. From: Fuchs, Brian R. (BLM) <BRFuchs@express-scripts.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 9:22 AM To: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org> Subject: Union Congregational Church CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jacquelyn, I attended the neighborhood meeting last night on the proposed development on the school/community portion of the UCC property. One thing I was wondering once I got home was what is the size of the proposed building site in terms of acres? I am wondering what 80 units would be in terms of density stated as units per acre. Thanks, Brian City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 127 D e a r M s . Kr a m e r, I am writing to express my support for the PPL housing project which is being proposed by the Union UCC Church. St. Louis Park is need of housing that is affordable to all income levels. The PPL project will provide much needed housing as well as support for low income families and individuals. The implementation of this project is consistent with the goals of the community as stated in the Comprehensive 2040 plan: The overall goal for housing in St. Louis Park is to: "Prom ote and facilitate a balanced and enduring housing stock that offers a continuum of diverse life-cycle housing choic es suitable for households of all incom e levels including affordable, senior, supportive and m ixed incom e housing disbursed throughout the City." Project for Pride in Living is an established organization that has been successful in building and supporting stable housing. Their mission statement reflects this commitment: PPL builds the hope, assets and self-reliance of individuals and families who have low er incom es by providing trans form ative affordable housing and employment readiness services. I urge you to support this important project. As a teacher I see first hand the impact that housing instability has on students. As a member of the St Louis Park community, I want to live in a city with a diverse stock of dignified, affordable housing for people across the income spectrum. Sincerely, Rebecca Phelan 3944 Joppa Ave South St Louis Park, MN City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 128 From:Randal Dick To:Jake Spano; Nadia Mohamed; Larry Kraft; Margaret Rog; Tim Brausen; Rachel Harris Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Fwd: Proposed development at Union Congregational Church Date:Friday, May 15, 2020 8:33:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Spano and City Council Members, I've been reaching out to our city council member for Elmwood, Anne Mavity, without reply since March. We're very concerned about the density of the proposed development at UCC Congregational Church on Alabama. It's my understanding that they're proposing a development of anywhere between 50 to 80 units, mostly 2-3 bedrooms each, for a property in our neighborhood that is zoned for closer to 30 units. This would be right next to single family homes. This is truly unacceptable, and it's not consistent with other developments in the area. We understand the need for progress, and we understand the need for housing that supports the movement towards mass transit in the area, but this size of a development within a residential neighborhood and next to single family homes is truly unacceptable if not punitive. Additionally, we're hearing of possible unethical business/governmental dealings that involve conflicts of interest in order to push this development through. I remember reading an article on this in the Sun Sailor a few months ago, and the rumblings on this topic are getting louder. Please see previous e-mails to Anne Mavity below. We're hopeful that the City of St. Louis Park will help to further educate our neighborhood on why the city is taking these steps to push through a development that breaks density standards, zoning laws, and in a manner that has brought up rumors of severe ethical shortcomings. I can be reached by phone or e-mail if anybody would be willing to take the time to educate me on the events that have transpired to date. A well-publicized meeting with our neighborhood to discuss the development as well as how under served we are by our city council representative would likely be enlightening for everybody. I'm a proud citizen of St. Louis Park, and I am supportive of our city government as a whole. You've made real positive progress for our city over the years that we have lived here, and I commend you for it. Unfortunately, what is being planned for the development at the UCC Congregational Church on Alabama Avenue is a mistake and the process continues to be suspect. Thanks. Randal Dick 612-730-5621 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Randal Dick <randal.s.dick@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:42 PM Subject: Fwd: Proposed development at Union Congregational Church To: <amavity@stlouispark.org> City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 129 Hi Anne, I didn’t hear back from you on this. As one of your constituents, I sure would appreciate hearing your thoughts on your position related to this upcoming development decision. If I’m misunderstanding the development, I’m hoping you will help to better inform me. Thanks. Randy Begin forwarded message: From: Randal Dick <randal.s.dick@gmail.com> Date: March 12, 2020 at 2:23:40 PM CDT To: amavity@stlouispark.org Subject: Proposed development at Union Congregational Church Hi Anne, We met a couple of years ago at an Elmwood neighborhood gathering at Justad Park, and it was a pleasure. I believe the hot topic at the time was adding sidewalks to the neighborhood and how extreme the opposition seemed be towards a solution that allows kids to walk and ride their bicycles safely in our neighborhood. Recently, I've been catching up to the proposed development at Union Congregational Church. I'm hearing about opposition reasoning that I agree with and some that I do not. There are 3 things stick out to me that are concerning: 1. The size and height of the development seems overwhelming for that part of the neighborhood. 4 stories of building with 80 units right next to single family homes just doesn't seem like a good idea or fair to the folks that live in that area. Is there an option that has less height and less density that still addresses the church's financial issues? 2. Parking will be unusually challenging. Street parking around the nearby townhomes and condos is always full, and the density of that development is far less than what is being proposed at the church property. That's a lot of cars that will naturally be added to already crowded streets as 80 new families need to add a second car or have visitors/guests. Beyond just parking and traffic challenges, the increased car density is going to create safety issues for our residents. In theory, the light rail will help to address this, but I haven't seen that to be the case in any other similar neighborhood along the existing light rail lines. The surrounding areas become one big park-and-ride (even with official park-and- City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 130 rides just one neighborhood away). The additional cars that will come with 80 new units built on half a city block is going to make this situation even worse for the residents in that area. 3. The decision seems rushed. I just learned of this new development after the "proposed development" sign went up on the property recently. I'm now hearing that a decision will be made by the council in April. I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but it seems like more time, consideration, communication, and neighborhood involvement went into what kind of playground structure we were going to build at Justad Park as well as the recent sidewalk topic. Is there a way to slow this down a little and ensure that the neighborhood is fully informed and has the opportunity to provide thoughtful input? I believe that there have been 2 meetings to date, and I heard that the opposition was intense. That tells me that any near-term decision is premature or forced. I'm all for progress and re-development in Elmwood, but this proposal seems pretty intrusive and rushed. I'm hopeful that we can take the time that is necessary to find a solution that has a chance of creating harmony rather than angst in the neighborhood. I'm curious to hear your position on the topic as well as your ideas for ensuring that your constituents in Elmwood are heard, feel like they have the opportunity to influence the proposed development due to the direct impact to the nearby residents, and therefore drive more buy-in for progress to the neighborhood. Thanks, Anne. Randal Dick 612-730-5621 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 131 From:Andrew Sackrison To:spano@stlouispark.org Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC project feedback Date:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:29:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Spano, I hope that you and your family are well in crazy times. I wanted to express my personal opinions and perhaps get some clarity/insight on project processes. I will fully admit I am not an expert in city politics, zoning, project financing etc. but I am just thinking from a common sense standpoint : Size and Scale- Take out any and all factors other than how the proposed project will look within the area. There are 2/3 story condos towards 36th and Wooddale that the Church itself apparently fought for before they were built, and then the last proposal I saw (I believe it has come down a little bit since but haven't seen new proposals yet) was 4 stories directly across the street from single family homes. From a planning perspective how does this make sense? this will tower over the entire area (the church is one story, the industrial buildings are one story) and change the entire landscape rather than be somewhat integrated into the area? Folks that are more in tuned then I have brought up that there is an Elmwood study that was to be followed until 2030 I was told that states all new structure should scale back into single family homes, is this a real study or was this redone? -Parking & Alabama traffic-the streets of Elmwood were narrowed last year which I learned "slows" traffic down. The last proposal seen didn't have enough parking for even 1 car per unit, but they proposed building a park within the complex? what's wrong with the park across the street?? I have been told many tenants wont own cars, is this part of criteria that PPL vets out for living in the complex because 6/7months out of the year we have freezing temperatures in our climate. The start tribune did a study that states 98% of Minnesotans prefer to drive, so while yes folks can hop on the light rail, we live in a climate that almost forces Minnesotans to own at least one car to be able to go out to run errands for groceries/essentials ... were not in California where folks can walk a few miles 12 months out of the year... -There are many young families that have moved in and around the Elmwood area with young kids, and the area has 2 parks in Justad and the Depot where folks can walk and kids can run because it is relatively a quiet neighborhood/area, but after both of these projects (Jessen Press and UCC) Alabama is going to be loaded from both ends no longer making it that safe. It will be a congested, high density mess. Inclusivity of neighborhood from beginning stages on developments- After attending the UCC neighborhood meeting which was highly attended, one of the main topics again and again was lack of neighborhood engagement in initial planning process. Clearly the initial proposal caused controversy within the Elmwood neighborhood once it was seen which means that from the get go there wasn't a sufficient input? Where does the ball land on this to clearly get input? does City Council lay out to developers the best way to engage the community? whoever was in the initial study didn't represent the broader neighborhood opinion and so does this process need to be looked at? Seems to me that developers, the city, citizens could save A LOT of time, money and effort it is more coordinated from the beginning, no? the fact that neighborhood representatives filed a complaint on a council member seems that this process and perhaps some trust is broken. While I imagine there is pushback on most projects, there has to be a better way to be more transparent on what is going on in citizens backyards... Adhering to your vision statement on the website below regarding neighborhoods: City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 132 Plan By Neighborhood Vision For Neighborhoods St. Louis Park’s Plan by Neighborhood is guided by the city’s vision of creating and maintaining a very “livable community” built upon strong neighborhoods. The ideal neighborhood has a center, public gathering places, green spaces, identifiable edges, and a walkable environment. Although each neighborhood has a unique history, development pattern, character, challenges, and opportunities, all neighborhoods should ideally provide a healthy living environment with convenient access to essential community services, including transportation options, jobs, parks and open space, shopping, services, entertainment, and other urban amenities. Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of St. Louis Park being a healthy community. As the community and neighborhoods face inevitable change over time, the city values the preservation and enhancement of each neighborhood’s unique sense of identity based on its location, natural features, history, development character and residents. Ideally, strong neighborhoods also provide connectedness and support for a wide range of individuals and families, a source of friendship and neighbors you can rely upon if the need arises. Within this statement on the website it states: "the city values the preservation and enhancement of each neighborhoods unique sense of identity based on its location, natural features, history, development character and residents." How does a 4 story building preserve and enhance our neighborhood? the size of the project is being dictated based on what the church needs to survive which by the way, the Pastor at the neighborhood meeting out right admitted that they probably wont survive even after this lump some funding-believe she said maybe 5 years?!?!?!? In conclusion, I hope that the city council and planning commission and the powers that be really consider the voices of whom they represent. Why does the development have to be so big? I know a new proposal is coming down a little in size but I can tell you that the neighborhood will be receptive to a project that is in line with size and scale that makes sense moving into a single family home neighborhood and will not vastly change the identity of it. Which means a 2 1/2 story max building in line with what is across the street (even this size will change the area but we as residents can embrace it). There is no reason all parties can't negotiate and come to some sort of an agreement that will support affordable housing initiatives and help the neighborhood embrace change. I appreciate you taking the time to read this and welcome any response (phone or email) to any of the questions within this note. Respectfully, Andrew Sackrison 952-250-0308 6215 Oxford Street SLP, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 133 From:allison ladd To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:June 3 public hearing: Union Congregational Church development. 3rd Date:Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:20:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I live at 5920 Oxford St. Between Alabama and Woodale Ave. when the street was reconstructed a few years ago it must have narrowed a bit. Cars are allied to park on both sides of the street which does not leave enough width for two vehicles to pass through. If another multi residence is built a couple of hundred feet from this street the traffic will become very bad. Please consider affect. Also ask that you consider only allowing parking on one side of the street. In the winter it’s much worse with snow mating the street eve narrower. Thank you Allison Ladd 5920 Oxford St Get Outlook for iOS City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 134 From:M John Evans To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Congregational Church Housing Project Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:22:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Kramer - I am a property owner one block from the proposed PPL Union Congregational Church housing project. I am writing to express my strong support for the project. It is important to provide affordable housing to the community and this is a great place for it, due to the high density of the area and the proximity to the light rail station. Additionally, the building renderings are appealing. I welcome this addition to the neighborhood and am hopeful the city council will approve the project. Thank you for receiving and sharing my input. John Evans 5900 Oxford Street #17 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 135 From:Mark Bredesen To:Jake Spano Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; rbroshat@gmail.com; Anne Mavity; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:RE: Comments on PUD at 3700 Alabama Ave / 6027 37th St W Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:51:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jake, I understand that the PPL project has been resubmitted to the City Council at 3 stories/60 units and still at 100% affordable housing. I would like to resubmit my original comments below into the formal record as a strenuous objection to having any development in this location with a 100% affordable component. As my original note detailed, the “100% affordable” model is a demonstrated failure after being tried extensively in recent American urban planning history and is unacceptable to myself as well as our neighbors. The entire effort with this development, with a lack of transparency and engagement with the community, has been a case study in how not to do things at the local government level. How can St Louis Park preach “inclusion and respect” yet act in such a diametrically opposite manner with critical development projects such as this? The only way I see this project succeeding is starting from scratch with an honest and fair process as the entire thing is basically polluted at this point. PS In my 44 years in the area, this is the 1st time I’ve ever written any City Council or government official about anything. I’m a fair representation of how otherwise normal/everyday people have been infuriated by this project and the secretive, dictatorial way things have proceeded. I cannot tell you how many of my neighbors I’ve stopped and spoken with over the past 3 months who feel the same way – people who rarely/never get involved in local government, but are absolutely incensed at what’s happening here. Best regards, Mark and Katia Bredesen 5900 Oxford Street #10 From: Jake Spano <jspano@stlouispark.org> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 9:28 AM To: Mark Bredesen <MBredesen@manulife.com> Cc: Jacquelyn Kramer <jkramer@stlouispark.org>; rbroshat@gmail.com; Anne Mavity <amavity@stlouispark.org>; Karen Barton <kbarton@stlouispark.org>; Tom Harmening <THARMENING@stlouispark.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments on PUD at 3700 Alabama Ave / 6027 37th St W CAUTION This email is from an external sender, be cautious with links and attachments. Mark and Katia- City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 136 Thank you for your email regarding this project. I’m not sure if you are aware but earlier this week, after meeting with a group of residents from the neighborhood, the developers have pulled this project from the process so they can refine their proposal. Not sure what all will change but wanted you to know that. You might want to reach out to the Elmwood neighborhood association/board to learn more. Have a good day, Jake Spano Mayor St. Louis Park, MN (he/him/his) 952-928-1448 (direct) On Apr 9, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Bredesen <MBredesen@manulife.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To : City Council and Planning Commission, City of St Louis Park (c/o Jacquelyn Kramer) CC : Jake Spano, Mayor and Bob Broshat, President, Village in the Park Homeowner Association RE : Planned unit development from Project in Pride in Living at 3700 Alabama Ave My name is Mark Bredesen and my wife Katia and I are long-term residents of St Louis Park. We have been living at our current residence at 5900 Oxford Street #10 for 7 years which is less than one (1) block from the planned development. My wife and I strenuously disagree with the development as it is currently proposed. Our primary concern revolves around the concentration of large numbers of affordable housing units in a single location as the 4-story, 80 unit plan currently allows for. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 137 Concentrated affordable housing has been extensively tried over the past 50 years in the United States and has been a complete failure by any objective measure. Cities and municipalities that spent significant resources building concentrated affordable housing structures in the 1960s and 70s have since spent the past several decades dismantling them after experiencing overwhelmingly negative outcomes. Both Cabrini-Green in Chicago and Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis are relevant examples of the failure of a concentrated approach. Regrettably, putting large numbers of people of low socioeconomic status in immediate proximity to each other has been definitively shown to produce several negative effects, most notably significant increases in crime (including, but not limited to, violent crime and narcotics trafficking). Mixed developments, however, encompassing both affordable and market rate units, have shown disproportionately better outcomes in median income growth, educational attainment and neighborhood property values and has tended to be an uplifting contributor for residents closer to the poverty line. As you are aware, our Village in the Park development contains a mix of market/affordable (~10%) units and has been an overwhelmingly positive and local example of how this type of development can succeed. Given the widely known and acknowledged trends associated with concentrated affordable housing – of which a multitude of supportive studies are available from academic and governmental organizations, including HUD – it is both intellectually astounding and borderline negligent that our City Council in 2020 would pursue a development project as has been proposed at 3700 Alabama Avenue. While the benefits/payoffs to the Church and developer are obvious and apparent, the project ultimately benefits none of the stakeholders that “Project in Pride in Living” claims to want to help….residents of the building will suffer from the same detrimental trends seen elsewhere with concentrated affordable housing, while area residents such as myself will be exceedingly burdened with a neighborhood victimized by higher crime, unwanted density and lower quality of life. If “Project in Pride”, the Church and the City Council are genuinely interested in listening to area residents, there are two obvious and concrete steps that can be taken to adjust the project to reflect concerns expressed by us and the 20+ neighbors of ours we’ve spoken to over the past two weeks: First, the project can be reduced from 80 units/4 stories to 40 units/2 stories to fit with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, existing zoning ordinances and area traffic infrastructure. Second, the project can be modified to include no more than 20% affordable housing (and no less than 80% market rate housing) which will ensure that the affordable housing residents have a chance to succeed and, hopefully, one day graduate into market rate tenants. These are reasonable, prudent compromises that let everyone come away from this project a “winner” and contribute to the long term City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 138 viability of our very successful and diverse existing neighborhood character. Respectfully, Mark Bredesen Katia Bredesen 5900 Oxford Street #10 Mark R. Bredesen SVP - GO Performance Measurement Attribution RiskManulife Investment ManagementE mbredesen@manulife.com | O 1 (617) 572-5182 197 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient, please: (1) notify me immediately by replying to this message; (2) do not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce any part of the message or any attachment; and (3) destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 139 From:Andrew Sackrison To:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Shannon Sackrison Subject:UCC development updated proposal feedback Date:Thursday, May 28, 2020 11:27:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Spano, I appreciated the time and our last conversation. I was able to view the updated plans proposed by PPL for the UCC development last night and I understand that city staff did some work to get those out to the neighborhood in short order which I am thankful for! As we discussed recently, I have sought to educate myself on the wholistic planning of the city to better understand the direction and goals the city has for future enhancement and development. In looking over the 2040 comprehensive plan I can’t help but wonder how far off this new proposal still is from what is supposed to be a “guide” for medium density residential that the city council voted approval for? Please read these statements below directly from the plan and vision on the city website: 5-125 Where We Are Headed This section establishes the city’s comprehensive plan land use designations, which are fully defined below. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan Map, Figure 5-5, which is the city’s official land use plan map, uses these land use designations to guide all land within the city’s boundaries. These designations guide current and future land use planning and development through the year 2040. They are intended to use sound planning principles to shape the character, type and density of future development. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the land use designation for each parcel. ***the last sentence in this statement, “change in zoning is required to be consistent with the land use designation for each parcel”-this proposal is not consistent with the land use designation. 5-125 RM - Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential designation is intended for residential areas adjacent to commercial centers, corridors, and nodes. It allows net residential densities from six (6) to 30 units per acre. This designation allows a variety of housing types that are compatible in scale to single family homes, including single-family detached, duplexes, townhomes, and small two- or three-story apartment buildings. ***-6-30 units per acre, it is my understanding the land is 1.2 acres for UCC project meaning that 60 proposed units is still almost double the amount of units the land use study suggests? ***is a three-story building across the street in scale to single family homes which the land sits up about 8-10 ft from the neighborhood to begin with? In reading these statements above I hope that you can understand how this frustrates residents when what is being proposed directly contradicts the plan laid out by the city itself! I realize the land use study isn’t the end all be all, but this isn’t even close, what is the point of doing an expensive study that lays out the next 20 years if it isn’t somewhat followed? Moving on, the area of the proposed development is going to change dramatically with light rail and all the opportunities of other buildings in the area (such as Johnny pops to name one). This is the last parcel directly next to single family homes and what is approved here will set the baseline for other developments very close to it. I hope City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 140 the city council and planning commission would consider a project of 40 units which is still 10 units above the recommended amount but what I personally think the neighborhood should agree with to embrace the change that is coming. I do not think this is an unreasonable request and I believe that this will alleviate a lot of what has been a frustrating process to this point. I will recognize and I really am glad that PPL decided to engage the neighborhood on this project, but I am also aware the developers come in very high to get what they want in the end, we are very close to a solution for all parties coming to agreement and I hope we get there. In the last council meeting I heard a lot about acting honestly, ethically and with integrity. Doing what you say your going to do (ie the land use study and comprehensive plan that was just passed last fall) has everything to do with those words. Please follow through with what has been laid out in these plans because as of now, approving this project is misleading to the residents of St. Louis Park/Elmwood neighborhood. I welcome any feedback that you or council members Nadia Mohamed and Larry Kraft may have. Thank You, Andrew Sackrison City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 141 From:Shannon Sackrison To:Jake Spano; Larry Kraft; Nadia Mohamed; Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC Development - Do Not Support Proposal Date:Thursday, May 28, 2020 8:32:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Evening! Just got our notice about the hearing on 6/3 for the UCC development...I've reached out before but wanted to make sure I submitted my comments for record again. We are happy we are finally being heard & have been able to submit comments on the project (in the nick of time). Sounds like PPL still has some work to do to meet the scope/scale of what would fit this neighborhood... We still need your help and are seeking your assistance to support us. We need you guys to ask tough questions and make sure the developer understands what we are asking is not unreasonable...(hence the 2040 plan SLP has published-this project is beyond anything suggested for this historic area & beyond anything past surveys have recommended). Even if we are piggybacking off the Met Councils recommendations for developments in this type of zoning along the transit line...we are still VERY far off for what this neighborhood can handle alone in the size/scale/scope. They shouldn't be allowed a pass just because its affordable housing. We'd be asking any developer to uphold these standards & recommendations. This piece of land is on 1.2 acres- the study suggests max 30 units per acre is recommended...they are still proposing 4 story/68+ units. This is still double! They must come down in size.... We also need to see mixed income at least up to 80% AMI or throw in some market rate units. Diversity proves to work-our neighborhood is the gold standard in how that is working! We are a historic neighborhood -we need to preserve the single family homes (depot & park) that are still here & have been deemed important to SLP. There is enough high density projects and housing going on in this area, on much busier streets, that are not as close to single family homes that meet the overall vision for SLP.... This particular lot/area on Alabama cannot. We are asking for your help to ensure what is built here fits this area and enhances the neighborhood, not diminish it. I could go on but I think the biggest argument here is size. There is still a lot of room for improvement. I really hope we are heard and you can ensure the council is doing its due diligence to make sure this is also the right fit for this neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your work in our community! City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 142 From:Claudia Oxley To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Support for Union Park Flats Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:02:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I am writing to voice my support for the Union Park Flats project. Our community - St Louis Park as well as the broader metro area - is in desperate need of affordable housing. We have not responsibly supported investment in this basic infrastructure for years, decades even. It's time to step forward in significant, consistent ways. The location of Union Flats with its proximity to public transportation, relatively nearby shopping and community services is ideal. I have every confidence that the City Council can and will ensure the project has the features and design necessary to make residents comfortable as well as making the property a true asset to our community. We can do this. There will never be a place to invest in this housing that doesn't ruffle the feathers of existing property owners. We have to get beyond that. We have to have the dialogue that begins with..."We're doing this..." and allows for engagement about features and design that can help support all property values. If we don't do this here, when will a better time come for us to care for those with limited economic opportunities? Where will the ideal place be? There's no viable excuse that doesn't smack of classism mixed with a healthy dose of racism. Let's not be those people this time. Thank you, Claudia Oxley 952.200.1647 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 143 From:Paula Evensen To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Church development Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:26:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Kramer, The pandemic we are experiencing has given me another reason to be concerned about density. New York City had an incredible virus outbreak because they are so dense. People in NYC have nowhere to go outside. This development, with 68 units, or whatever they changed it to this week, has very little outdoor space for residents. If the height could be reduced to two stories, the density would be reduced, and the parking deficit would be reduced as well. Also, this block is our buffer from the taller developments beyond. Two stories would be a better progression into our neighborhood. Also, this area is not zoned high density. Let's follow the density recommendation and keep this medium density, not high density. One thing I am struggling with myself, is this. I would like to see this development to look like homes, with front doors and front yards or decks etc. But this is more apartmentlike, with doors on the inside in hallways. With no front door out to the street there is no reason to park a car on the street. Problem solved there, but the residents have no outdoor space of their own. It is not our fault the church is losing money. I understand another project could be worse. I am also concerned about what might happen to the remaining church building in the years ahead if the congregation shrinks even further. The church has a fine mission. Let's make this work for all of us. Thank you Paula Evensen 6321 W 37th St SLP 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 144 From:Steve Friederichsen To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC development Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:17:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident at 6228 Oxford St. I am not in favor of exceeding the medium density residential allowance of 30 units or below per acre. Steve Friederichsen City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 145 From:Carol Cacka Fracassi To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Al Fracassi Subject:PPL project with Union Congressional Church in Elmwood Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:26:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jacquelyn, We hope this email finds you well during these unprecedented times. As a follow-up to our email in April, we are writing about the Project for Pride in Living development at 3700 Alabama Ave in the Elmwood neighborhood (also called Union Park Flats). We are supportive of a development that compliments and fits into the neighborhood. Through working sessions with PPL, they are definitely heading in the right direction and with a little more work to align with the guidance in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (updated in 2019), along with the Elmwood Area Land Use Study from 2003 (valid to 2033) we can develop a truly great project. We hope that city planning uses these documents as the guide posts to direct the development of this plan. This would ask PPL to have a project with 36-40 units, allowing a height of 2 stories near the single family homes with the option to scale up on the east side and provide 1.8 underground parking spots per unit. I know there is a lot of debate on parking. One thing that is important to take into consideration is that our streets recently within the neighborhood were narrowed to minimize traffic through it. This has made it challenging to drive down the streets when cars are parked on both sides in the summer. In the winter, the situation is magnified due to the snow - so it should not be minimized. Elmwood is known for its historical significance with the Train Depot and some of the oldest homes in the city. Since this is one of the last remaining plots of land near single family homes in Elmwood, it would be ideal that it compliment the neighborhood in architecture and materials to maintain the historical significance. We truly appreciate you considering these points as you review the plans and provide feedback to PPL, Union Congressional Church and the City Council. Thank you in advance for your support and attention, Carol and Al Fracassi 6220 Oxford Street City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 146 From:Tim Brausen To:Oscar Castro Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: 3700 Alabama development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:14:26 AM Mr. Castro, thank you for your email. As always, we’ll try to make the best decision for the residents of St. Louis Park. Regards, Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member Sent from my iPad > On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Oscar Castro <oscarito1sv@gmail.com> wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Hello Tim, > > My name is Oscar Castro and I’m a resident of 3762 Alabama ave s. And am writing you this email because I need your help, as you might not PPL is trying to build an affordable building in this part of the church in our residential neighborhood, don’t get me wrong as I am in favor or diversity and affordable housing and being myself part of minority group too (Hispanic) however the biggest concerns with this development is the size of the building , I considers 3 stories building isn’t the right size for this residential part of saint louis park, if they can get it down to 2 stories it will be perfect. Another concern is about parking street being 60 unit building and if each family have at least 2 cars there is 120 cars when the developers had state that each unit will have underground parking then only 10 additional parking on parking lot they expecting people park on the streets and alabéala already have a pretty numbers of car from house owners. And bringing more it will create a chaos and possible even problems with neighbors around, so I would like you to consider on the voting meeting for June 3rd that this is taken in consideration. Again I am in favor for the plan however the size of the building needs to come down. If you ever drive by you will see why is a concern the size of the building in which I disagree. > > Thank you so much for all the work you do. > > I’m a proud resident of Saint Louis Park. > > Oscar Castro > > Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 147 From:Claudia Oxley To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Support for Union Park Flats Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:02:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I am writing to voice my support for the Union Park Flats project. Our community - St Louis Park as well as the broader metro area - is in desperate need of affordable housing. We have not responsibly supported investment in this basic infrastructure for years, decades even. It's time to step forward in significant, consistent ways. The location of Union Flats with its proximity to public transportation, relatively nearby shopping and community services is ideal. I have every confidence that the City Council can and will ensure the project has the features and design necessary to make residents comfortable as well as making the property a true asset to our community. We can do this. There will never be a place to invest in this housing that doesn't ruffle the feathers of existing property owners. We have to get beyond that. We have to have the dialogue that begins with..."We're doing this..." and allows for engagement about features and design that can help support all property values. If we don't do this here, when will a better time come for us to care for those with limited economic opportunities? Where will the ideal place be? There's no viable excuse that doesn't smack of classism mixed with a healthy dose of racism. Let's not be those people this time. Thank you, Claudia Oxley 952.200.1647 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 148 From:Paula Evensen To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Church development Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:26:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Ms. Kramer, The pandemic we are experiencing has given me another reason to be concerned about density. New York City had an incredible virus outbreak because they are so dense. People in NYC have nowhere to go outside. This development, with 68 units, or whatever they changed it to this week, has very little outdoor space for residents. If the height could be reduced to two stories, the density would be reduced, and the parking deficit would be reduced as well. Also, this block is our buffer from the taller developments beyond. Two stories would be a better progression into our neighborhood. Also, this area is not zoned high density. Let's follow the density recommendation and keep this medium density, not high density. One thing I am struggling with myself, is this. I would like to see this development to look like homes, with front doors and front yards or decks etc. But this is more apartmentlike, with doors on the inside in hallways. With no front door out to the street there is no reason to park a car on the street. Problem solved there, but the residents have no outdoor space of their own. It is not our fault the church is losing money. I understand another project could be worse. I am also concerned about what might happen to the remaining church building in the years ahead if the congregation shrinks even further. The church has a fine mission. Let's make this work for all of us. Thank you Paula Evensen 6321 W 37th St SLP 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 149 From:Steve Friederichsen To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC development Date:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:17:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident at 6228 Oxford St. I am not in favor of exceeding the medium density residential allowance of 30 units or below per acre. Steve Friederichsen City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 150 From:Carol Cacka Fracassi To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Al Fracassi Subject:PPL project with Union Congressional Church in Elmwood Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:26:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jacquelyn, We hope this email finds you well during these unprecedented times. As a follow-up to our email in April, we are writing about the Project for Pride in Living development at 3700 Alabama Ave in the Elmwood neighborhood (also called Union Park Flats). We are supportive of a development that compliments and fits into the neighborhood. Through working sessions with PPL, they are definitely heading in the right direction and with a little more work to align with the guidance in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (updated in 2019), along with the Elmwood Area Land Use Study from 2003 (valid to 2033) we can develop a truly great project. We hope that city planning uses these documents as the guide posts to direct the development of this plan. This would ask PPL to have a project with 36-40 units, allowing a height of 2 stories near the single family homes with the option to scale up on the east side and provide 1.8 underground parking spots per unit. I know there is a lot of debate on parking. One thing that is important to take into consideration is that our streets recently within the neighborhood were narrowed to minimize traffic through it. This has made it challenging to drive down the streets when cars are parked on both sides in the summer. In the winter, the situation is magnified due to the snow - so it should not be minimized. Elmwood is known for its historical significance with the Train Depot and some of the oldest homes in the city. Since this is one of the last remaining plots of land near single family homes in Elmwood, it would be ideal that it compliment the neighborhood in architecture and materials to maintain the historical significance. We truly appreciate you considering these points as you review the plans and provide feedback to PPL, Union Congressional Church and the City Council. Thank you in advance for your support and attention, Carol and Al Fracassi 6220 Oxford Street City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 151 From:Tim Brausen To:Oscar Castro Cc:Jacquelyn Kramer; Karen Barton; Tom Harmening Subject:Re: 3700 Alabama development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:14:26 AM Mr. Castro, thank you for your email. As always, we’ll try to make the best decision for the residents of St. Louis Park. Regards, Tim Tim Brausen St. Louis Park Ward 4 City Council Member Sent from my iPad > On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Oscar Castro <oscarito1sv@gmail.com> wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Hello Tim, > > My name is Oscar Castro and I’m a resident of 3762 Alabama ave s. And am writing you this email because I need your help, as you might not PPL is trying to build an affordable building in this part of the church in our residential neighborhood, don’t get me wrong as I am in favor or diversity and affordable housing and being myself part of minority group too (Hispanic) however the biggest concerns with this development is the size of the building , I considers 3 stories building isn’t the right size for this residential part of saint louis park, if they can get it down to 2 stories it will be perfect. Another concern is about parking street being 60 unit building and if each family have at least 2 cars there is 120 cars when the developers had state that each unit will have underground parking then only 10 additional parking on parking lot they expecting people park on the streets and alabéala already have a pretty numbers of car from house owners. And bringing more it will create a chaos and possible even problems with neighbors around, so I would like you to consider on the voting meeting for June 3rd that this is taken in consideration. Again I am in favor for the plan however the size of the building needs to come down. If you ever drive by you will see why is a concern the size of the building in which I disagree. > > Thank you so much for all the work you do. > > I’m a proud resident of Saint Louis Park. > > Oscar Castro > > Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 152 From:aaron fisher To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC Development - Elmwood neighborhood Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 11:14:53 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jacquelyn, We would like our comments to be considered by the planning commission and the city council regarding the UCC proposed development along Alabama Ave S. We live two blocks from the proposed development and have been residents for five years. While there has been much discussion about the mission of the project to develop affordable housing, which we fully support, we are concerned about the size of the development and inadequate parking plans due to this specific section of the neighborhood having no outlet except for along Brunswick or Alabama. A detailed list of these concerns is below, along with a small map of the area to help reference the streets that are noted in our comments. Parking capacity is inadequate to support the proposed development's residents, current residents, Jorvig Park visitors, businesses (Jonny Pop's building), and church's parishioners. This area of the Elmwood neighborhood has restricted traffic flow on two sides by the railroad (West and North)/Hwy 7 and by Wooddale Ave/Hwy 100 (East). Because of this, we think that any development of greater than low-density residential on the west side of Alabama Ave. should not be a foregone conclusion, but something that is looked at very carefully because of parking and traffic needs. All traffic from residents west of the proposed site on Brunswick has to travel out to Brunswick to exit the neighborhood. All off-site parking by residents of the proposed development and 100% of their visitors (family/friends) would likely be on Brunswick or west of Brunswick, into the traffic flow restricted corner of the neighborhood. The likelihood that residents will park any further south than Oxford St. and any further east than Alabama is very low. The onsite, street-level parking should be available for their visitors, but the current underground parking stalls seem insufficient and likely to result in residents parking in those onsite, street-level stalls. The engineering department recently sent out a notification that further parking restrictions are proposed by the city for safely maneuvering vehicles through the mini-roundabouts located on Brunswick/Oxford and Brunswick/Goodrich (See map below with blue areas for parking restrictions). This would further push parking off of Brunswick onto three"short streets" (37th, Oxford & Goodrich) to the east. Parking along Oxford between Colorado and Brunswick is already being used regularly by residents and, due to recent road narrowing during a pavement management project, is only passable by one car at a time when cars are parked on both sides. Added parking stall needs would result in this same type of congestion extending further on this street and 37th street. Both Oxford and 37th, east of Colorado, and the small north/south section of Dakota have multiple driveways and an alleyway that also limit the number of safe parking stalls that City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 153 would still allow residents to safely back out of their driveways onto a narrow, car-lined street. Parking along Oxford between Alabama and the Fire Station is already being used by residents living in the townhomes and multi-unit complex on that street. The 2040 Land Use plan identifies Alabama Ave as a future bikeway, which we assume would mean further alterations/reductions in available parking spaces along that street. In addition, the 2040 plan for Elmwood neighborhood, with goals to responsibly identify areas for integrating more density in housing, still noted the parcels in the proposed project for civic use, not high-density residential. The size of this project should be adjusted to stay in-line with the land use plan, which seems like it could help address many of the parking concerns that we have. Daily traffic from a 60-unit residential complex can't compare to the current traffic of Kid's Place and UCC's worship services and community meetings. Current pickup traffic at Kid's Place is designated to Alabama Ave. The residential traffic would be all around the block with the proposed project and throughout the day/evening (not just restricted to drop-off/pickup times). Sincerely, Aaron and Kala Fisher 6313 Oxford St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 154 From:Denise Eng To:Jake Spano; Anne Mavity; Nadia Mohamed; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Margaret Rog; Larry Kraft; Jacquelyn Kramer; crobertson@sjoquist.com; claudiajohnston@comcast.net; jessicakraft@gmail.com; courtae@gmail.com; duma17@yahoo.com; matheweckholm@gmail.com; jimbeneke007@gmail.com Subject:Union Congregational Church proposed development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:42:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. June 3, 2020 Dear Mayor Spano, St. Louis Park City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: I am writing to express support for the proposed development on the site owned by Union Congregational Church on Oxford and Alabama. I have lived in the Elmwood Neighborhood for 32 years and live 3 blocks away from the site. There is a small but very vocal group in the neighborhood that has organized opposition to this project. I think it’s important that the planning commission and the council recognize that this group does not speak for the entire neighborhood. I’m not a part of the neighborhood group, in part because it’s difficult for those with other voices to gain any traction when expressing other views. In my conversations with neighbors I don’t hear a great deal of opposition to the project. An organizer of the neighborhood group said something to me about a bell curve, and I suspect that’s accurate. There is a relatively small contingent on my end of the spectrum that strongly supports the project, a small group that opposes it or wants significant changes, and, I believe, the majority who don’t have a strong opinion. I’ve attended 3 neighborhood meetings and listened to some of the concerns raised by my neighbors. I share some of them—increased traffic (I live across from Justad Park and witness every day how many drivers don’t even slow down for the 4-way stop), concern for wintertime plowing if all residents don’t have access to off-street parking, etc., but these are problems not unique to this project and can be managed. I’ve listened to my neighbors talk about housing density, past studies on land use in St. Louis Park, the desire to honor the historic nature of Elmwood as the first St. Louis Park neighborhood, the ways in which Elmwood has already contributed to housing and racial diversity as compared to other neighborhoods in our town. I have no reason to doubt City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 155 the veracity of this information, but I think we can always do more to make our community a more open, diverse and welcoming place. This project will provide much-needed affordable housing—that is actually affordable, rather than some idealized notion of what affordability means. Families can move into our community and establish roots here. I don’t find the project to interfere with the historic nature of the neighborhood. Those structures will still exist. And I think there are higher ideals we can aspire to. It is no small benefit that the church will be able to continue its viability during a time of declining church membership. Those who care about neighborhood history should know that Union Congregational Church was the first church to be established in St. Louis Park, formally organized in 1883 and established at its current location in 1893. It is an important St. Louis Park institution with a long tradition of contributing in significant ways to the quality of life in the neighborhood. To name a few, for many years it has hosted one of the largest AA meetings in the community; it has hosted the monthly meetings of the St. Louis Park Women’s Club, an important civic organization; it has hosted families through the Families Moving Forward program, helping low-income people move into permanent housing; every year it generates mountains of donations for the Free Store to be distributed to low-income people during Thanksgiving. And of course, it has provided a home for Kids Zone, a popular and highly regarded childcare program. Unfortunately, the church will no longer be able to provide a home for Kids Zone, but they are working closely to ensure that they will find a new home. The loss of Union Church as an institution would be a loss to the neighborhood and to the larger community. When I spoke in favor of this project at a community meeting someone asked me if I was a church member. I’m not; I’ve attended services there perhaps 8 or 10 times in the 32 years I’ve lived here. But I try to honor the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that I believe are core values for virtually all religions: love your neighbor; treat others as you would like to be treated; welcome the stranger; I was hungry and you fed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and in prison and you visited me; whatever you do to the least of these you do to me. We have an opportunity in St. Louis Park to advance these values. I hope the planning commission and the council will approve this project. Sincerely, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 156 Denise Eng 3850 Alabama Ave. So. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 157 From:Heather Simonett To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Park Flats Housing Development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:48:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jacquelyn, As a resident in the Elmwood Neighborhood, I want to let you know I do not believe the Scale and Scope of the proposed Union Park Flats is appropriate to abut up to single family homes. This project needs to remain at medium density. The Architecture needs to relate and match the scale of the neighborhood. This is the only acre for redevelopment that abuts single family homes. Elmwood has 22 other acres that would have little to no impact for a project of this size. I understand you have already approve and are moving forward for the planning meeting this evening. I wanted it to be documented that I do not support this project as it is today. Thank you, Heather Simonett City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 158 From:Sara Kitze To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:PPL Development on Alabama Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:57:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am a St. Louis Park resident, and I live across the street from the proposed development. I just wanted email to show my support for the development, I think it is fantastic that St. Louis Park can have this development for low- income housing. My husband and I fully support this project and advocate that it gets approved. Recent events have brought to light how important it is to take steps towards making our community as equitable as possible for all people. Constructing this development is a great first step in achieving this. Thanks, Sara Kitze Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 159 From:Thomas Meacham To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:PPL Union Park Flats Housing Development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:06:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: As a St. Louis Park homeowner and Elmwood Neighborhood resident, I would like my support entered into the record for the proposed Union Park Flats housing development. Recent events and the death of our resident, George Floyd, have once again highlighted the fact that we must do more to expand equitable outcomes for people of color. Access to affordable housing in our community is woeful and St. Louis Park has an opportunity to improve that deficiency with the Union Park Flats project and to be a LEADER in our state. I take pride living in an inclusive and diverse city and have full faith that the completion of the Union Park Flats project will enrich our city for years to come. Regards, Thomas Meacham City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 160 From:aaron fisher To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:UCC Development - Elmwood neighborhood Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 11:14:53 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jacquelyn, We would like our comments to be considered by the planning commission and the city council regarding the UCC proposed development along Alabama Ave S. We live two blocks from the proposed development and have been residents for five years. While there has been much discussion about the mission of the project to develop affordable housing, which we fully support, we are concerned about the size of the development and inadequate parking plans due to this specific section of the neighborhood having no outlet except for along Brunswick or Alabama. A detailed list of these concerns is below, along with a small map of the area to help reference the streets that are noted in our comments. Parking capacity is inadequate to support the proposed development's residents, current residents, Jorvig Park visitors, businesses (Jonny Pop's building), and church's parishioners. This area of the Elmwood neighborhood has restricted traffic flow on two sides by the railroad (West and North)/Hwy 7 and by Wooddale Ave/Hwy 100 (East). Because of this, we think that any development of greater than low-density residential on the west side of Alabama Ave. should not be a foregone conclusion, but something that is looked at very carefully because of parking and traffic needs. All traffic from residents west of the proposed site on Brunswick has to travel out to Brunswick to exit the neighborhood. All off-site parking by residents of the proposed development and 100% of their visitors (family/friends) would likely be on Brunswick or west of Brunswick, into the traffic flow restricted corner of the neighborhood. The likelihood that residents will park any further south than Oxford St. and any further east than Alabama is very low. The onsite, street-level parking should be available for their visitors, but the current underground parking stalls seem insufficient and likely to result in residents parking in those onsite, street-level stalls. The engineering department recently sent out a notification that further parking restrictions are proposed by the city for safely maneuvering vehicles through the mini-roundabouts located on Brunswick/Oxford and Brunswick/Goodrich (See map below with blue areas for parking restrictions). This would further push parking off of Brunswick onto three"short streets" (37th, Oxford & Goodrich) to the east. Parking along Oxford between Colorado and Brunswick is already being used regularly by residents and, due to recent road narrowing during a pavement management project, is only passable by one car at a time when cars are parked on both sides. Added parking stall needs would result in this same type of congestion extending further on this street and 37th street. Both Oxford and 37th, east of Colorado, and the small north/south section of Dakota have multiple driveways and an alleyway that also limit the number of safe parking stalls that City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 161 would still allow residents to safely back out of their driveways onto a narrow, car-lined street. Parking along Oxford between Alabama and the Fire Station is already being used by residents living in the townhomes and multi-unit complex on that street. The 2040 Land Use plan identifies Alabama Ave as a future bikeway, which we assume would mean further alterations/reductions in available parking spaces along that street. In addition, the 2040 plan for Elmwood neighborhood, with goals to responsibly identify areas for integrating more density in housing, still noted the parcels in the proposed project for civic use, not high-density residential. The size of this project should be adjusted to stay in-line with the land use plan, which seems like it could help address many of the parking concerns that we have. Daily traffic from a 60-unit residential complex can't compare to the current traffic of Kid's Place and UCC's worship services and community meetings. Current pickup traffic at Kid's Place is designated to Alabama Ave. The residential traffic would be all around the block with the proposed project and throughout the day/evening (not just restricted to drop-off/pickup times). Sincerely, Aaron and Kala Fisher 6313 Oxford St. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 162 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 163 From:Denise Eng To:Jake Spano; Anne Mavity; Nadia Mohamed; Rachel Harris; Tim Brausen; Margaret Rog; Larry Kraft; Jacquelyn Kramer; crobertson@sjoquist.com; claudiajohnston@comcast.net; jessicakraft@gmail.com; courtae@gmail.com; duma17@yahoo.com; matheweckholm@gmail.com; jimbeneke007@gmail.com Subject:Union Congregational Church proposed development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:42:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. June 3, 2020 Dear Mayor Spano, St. Louis Park City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: I am writing to express support for the proposed development on the site owned by Union Congregational Church on Oxford and Alabama. I have lived in the Elmwood Neighborhood for 32 years and live 3 blocks away from the site. There is a small but very vocal group in the neighborhood that has organized opposition to this project. I think it’s important that the planning commission and the council recognize that this group does not speak for the entire neighborhood. I’m not a part of the neighborhood group, in part because it’s difficult for those with other voices to gain any traction when expressing other views. In my conversations with neighbors I don’t hear a great deal of opposition to the project. An organizer of the neighborhood group said something to me about a bell curve, and I suspect that’s accurate. There is a relatively small contingent on my end of the spectrum that strongly supports the project, a small group that opposes it or wants significant changes, and, I believe, the majority who don’t have a strong opinion. I’ve attended 3 neighborhood meetings and listened to some of the concerns raised by my neighbors. I share some of them—increased traffic (I live across from Justad Park and witness every day how many drivers don’t even slow down for the 4-way stop), concern for wintertime plowing if all residents don’t have access to off-street parking, etc., but these are problems not unique to this project and can be managed. I’ve listened to my neighbors talk about housing density, past studies on land use in St. Louis Park, the desire to honor the historic nature of Elmwood as the first St. Louis Park neighborhood, the ways in which Elmwood has already contributed to housing and racial diversity as compared to other neighborhoods in our town. I have no reason to doubt City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 164 the veracity of this information, but I think we can always do more to make our community a more open, diverse and welcoming place. This project will provide much-needed affordable housing—that is actually affordable, rather than some idealized notion of what affordability means. Families can move into our community and establish roots here. I don’t find the project to interfere with the historic nature of the neighborhood. Those structures will still exist. And I think there are higher ideals we can aspire to. It is no small benefit that the church will be able to continue its viability during a time of declining church membership. Those who care about neighborhood history should know that Union Congregational Church was the first church to be established in St. Louis Park, formally organized in 1883 and established at its current location in 1893. It is an important St. Louis Park institution with a long tradition of contributing in significant ways to the quality of life in the neighborhood. To name a few, for many years it has hosted one of the largest AA meetings in the community; it has hosted the monthly meetings of the St. Louis Park Women’s Club, an important civic organization; it has hosted families through the Families Moving Forward program, helping low-income people move into permanent housing; every year it generates mountains of donations for the Free Store to be distributed to low-income people during Thanksgiving. And of course, it has provided a home for Kids Zone, a popular and highly regarded childcare program. Unfortunately, the church will no longer be able to provide a home for Kids Zone, but they are working closely to ensure that they will find a new home. The loss of Union Church as an institution would be a loss to the neighborhood and to the larger community. When I spoke in favor of this project at a community meeting someone asked me if I was a church member. I’m not; I’ve attended services there perhaps 8 or 10 times in the 32 years I’ve lived here. But I try to honor the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that I believe are core values for virtually all religions: love your neighbor; treat others as you would like to be treated; welcome the stranger; I was hungry and you fed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and in prison and you visited me; whatever you do to the least of these you do to me. We have an opportunity in St. Louis Park to advance these values. I hope the planning commission and the council will approve this project. Sincerely, City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 165 Denise Eng 3850 Alabama Ave. So. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 166 From:Heather Simonett To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:Union Park Flats Housing Development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:48:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jacquelyn, As a resident in the Elmwood Neighborhood, I want to let you know I do not believe the Scale and Scope of the proposed Union Park Flats is appropriate to abut up to single family homes. This project needs to remain at medium density. The Architecture needs to relate and match the scale of the neighborhood. This is the only acre for redevelopment that abuts single family homes. Elmwood has 22 other acres that would have little to no impact for a project of this size. I understand you have already approve and are moving forward for the planning meeting this evening. I wanted it to be documented that I do not support this project as it is today. Thank you, Heather Simonett City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 167 From:Sara Kitze To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:PPL Development on Alabama Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:57:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am a St. Louis Park resident, and I live across the street from the proposed development. I just wanted email to show my support for the development, I think it is fantastic that St. Louis Park can have this development for low- income housing. My husband and I fully support this project and advocate that it gets approved. Recent events have brought to light how important it is to take steps towards making our community as equitable as possible for all people. Constructing this development is a great first step in achieving this. Thanks, Sara Kitze Sent from my iPhone City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 168 From:Thomas Meacham To:Jacquelyn Kramer Subject:PPL Union Park Flats Housing Development Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:06:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: As a St. Louis Park homeowner and Elmwood Neighborhood resident, I would like my support entered into the record for the proposed Union Park Flats housing development. Recent events and the death of our resident, George Floyd, have once again highlighted the fact that we must do more to expand equitable outcomes for people of color. Access to affordable housing in our community is woeful and St. Louis Park has an opportunity to improve that deficiency with the Union Park Flats project and to be a LEADER in our state. I take pride living in an inclusive and diverse city and have full faith that the completion of the Union Park Flats project will enrich our city for years to come. Regards, Thomas Meacham City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 169 From:Wes Bue To:Jacquelyn Kramer Cc:Barbara Martin; Denise Eng Subject:PPL/UCC project Date:Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:04:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jacquelyn, Just a brief note to express my support for affordable housing project at 3700 Alabama Ave. So.. Not only will this provide housing for those who can't afford to buy property, it will bring new people into the neighborhood who can benefit from the nearby light rail system as well as the numerous retail shops within walking distance. It also will help preserve the church, clearly an asset to the community and a long-time resident of the neighborhood.It's the right thing to do. Wes Bue 3850 Alabama Ave. So. (612) 987-6804 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 170 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 171 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 172 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 173 Appropriate to Context The appropriateness and feasibility of density varies from community to community. St. Louis Park, Wooddale Flats on Wooddale Avenue near Excelsior Boulevard. This residential development on Wooddale Avenue near Excelsior Boulevard adds moderate density that fits into the adjoining single-family neighborhood. Density: 15 units per acre. Height: 30ft next to single-family, max is 43 ft on three-story section. Parking: 2.5 stalls per unit City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 174 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 175 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 176 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 177 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 178 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 179 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 180 • • • • • • • • • City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 181 D R A F T UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 3, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther Chair Kraft welcomed the two new commissioners to the meeting – Imran Dagane and Tom Weber – and thanked outgoing commissioners Johnston-Madison and Robertson for their service. 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of May 20, 2020 Commissioner Eckholm made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Dumalag seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Union Park Flats (Union Congregational Church project) Applicant: Project for Pride in Living Case Nos: 20-03-CP, 20-04-S, 20-05-PUD Ms. Kramer, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report. Ms. Kramer stated Union Congregational Church currently owns the project site, which is guided for civic uses. If council approves the applications, the land will be sold to PPL, who will develop the site and operate the proposed 3 story, 60- unit apartment building. There will be underground parking and units along the ground floor level will have private entrances. The building will have a mix of studio, one, two, and three bedrooms with 30% of the AMI or $30,000 for a household of 4 to 80% AMI or $80,000 for a household of 4. This is a 100% affordable housing development. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 182 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 2 Ms. Kramer noted the developer is asking for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation of the site from civic to a high-density residential; a preliminary and final plat; and a rezoning from R-3 two family residence zoning district to a planned unit development (PUD). Commissioner Eckholm asked if the context slide showing the proposed building elevations with surrounding buildings and if the lower image of the street elevation study is a single-family home. Ms. Kramer stated yes. Commission Beneke asked if there is additional parking in the area, aside from the on-street parking. Mr. Walther stated there are 5 spots on Alabama and 6 spots on Brunswick adjacent to the site which are included in staff’s parking counts. There is additional on-street parking that is permitted in the neighborhood; however, they are not counted toward parking spots for the development. Commissioner Dumalag asked if the on-street parking on east and west of the site is intended for the residents or property use, or if it’s open to anyone. Ms. Kramer stated they are public parking spaces, and open to anyone, and they are allowed to be counted to reduce the off-street parking required for the development. Commissioner Weber asked if the design of 37th Street will require any traffic calming measures. Mr. Walther stated staff did not find there was a need for any mitigation to the street due to the proposed project. Chair Kraft asked about the height limit for a building for the R-3 zoning district. Ms. Kramer stated it is 3 stories or 35 feet. Commissioner Dumalag asked where visitors can enter the building, on the north or south side. Ms. Kramer stated there is a public entrance on the south side in the interior courtyard, in addition to the main building entrance on the north side along 37th Street. Commissioner Erwin asked the height difference between this building and the townhomes to the east. Ms. Kramer stated she does not know the exact height. Mr. Walther estimated the mid-point of the roof was 25-28 feet. The applicant, Mr. Wilson, from Project for Pride in Living presented. He explained the PPL mission and stated they have existed since 1972. He also shared PPL’s goals for this development. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 183 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 3 Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. JW Starrett, 5825 Goodrich Ave., noted he is the neighborhood captain, adding they have appreciated working with PPL these last few months and do support affordable housing. We all care about St. Louis Park. He stated Elmwood is the most historic part of the city with some of the oldest homes, predating 1900. He added this is a diverse area of the city as well, with apartments and townhomes in the area as well. He stated this is the last developable area in Elmwood, and the areas residents are very engaged. He stated the majority are supportive of the affordable home project, but some are against. He stated right now the neighborhood wants the best project for the area, but the proposed project is not in compliance with the comp plan approved in 2019. He noted they want to create something new, but also keep the flavor of Elmwood, but noted it just is not there yet. He stated it is too dense, doesn’t comply with parking and the overall the architecture of the project does not feel appropriate. John Gleason, 5801 Goodrich Ave., stated he has been an active volunteer with PPL and resident of Elmwood for many years. He noted efficiency in land use is part of the ecosystem, and this information must be studied as it relates to this project. We all agree on affordability, and 50% of all Elmwood is affordable along with over 12 multifamily projects. He noted how the project fails on many points of livable community, land use, housing and historic preservation goals within the comprehensive plan, while stating the biggest failure is within the future land use designation. Studies for the site show it is almost two times the maximum density of units at more than 50 units per acre. Heather Simmonet, 6232 Oxford St., stated they have frustrations with the architectural design of the project. She stated it has industrial components and the scale is 3 stories which overshadows the homes on Brunswick Ave. Additionally, she stated the structure should be 2 stories only, especially when facing the historical homes on Brunswick Ave. She stated this project is isolated and was not looked at holistically within the context of the surrounding area. She added the roofline does not match the home in the area and the structure should feel like a home and not an institution. She stated it overpowers a historical neighborhood. She asked the commission to think about their decision and its impacts on one of the greatest neighborhoods in St. Louis Park. She asked the commission to re-evaluate the design and stated we can do better. The neighborhood representatives asked for one of the following three actions: 1. to not recommend the project, 2. to not recommend an action and direct staff and the developer to keep working on the project in order to match the comprehensive plan, or City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 184 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 4 3. to recommend denial of the project until they bring the project into code and with the comp plan, lower it to 2 stories, get all parking underground and ensure architecture and design are of superior quality. Denise Engbue, 3850 Alabama Ave., noted the presenters are community representatives, but not community leaders and do not represent her side. She encouraged the commission and neighbors to welcome new people into the community in light of the housing crises and increasing economic inequity. She stated this project will help St. Louis Park lead, and this project will help advance ideals for folks trying to gain a foothold. Barb Patterson, 4326 Wooddale Ave., and member of the city housing team, although she is not representing the team this evening, stated she is in favor of the plan. It supports the 2040 plan and she is pleased about the AMI and the units for families, proximity to parks and light rail and shopping. She is also happy with PPL and their response in revising the plan as needed. She stated she is impressed with the association with climate justice, the green plan and light rail, and reduction in parking. She stated she would be proud of this project in her city and thanked the commission, PPL and the church. Mitchell Aldrich, 6016 Oxford St., stated he lives adjacent to the site. He stated the plan complies with some of the comp plan, but there are some major concerns. He is in favor of the development, and of it being affordable and of it having an impact on the housing crisis. However, he stated being immediately next door to the project, he has concern about the size, scope and architectural mismatch of the project. He stated the challenges are not eliminated by reducing the footprint, but it’s a start. He recommended the commissioners come to the site and stand east-west at Brunswick, and view the area in relation to the design. He would like to be in the conversations about the alleyway since he does live right next to the development. Chuck Burrill, 5900 Oxford, stated at the March 10 public meeting with UCC and PPL, there was a need for 80 units. Now the development is 60 units vs. 80 units and the scope seems to have changed, and he asked what other changes could be made by the June 15th meeting. Dan Albright, 8607 Westmoreland Ln., stated he is in support of the project as presented. He added he is a member of the city’s affordable housing team and is frustrated by the lack of affordable housing in St. Louis Park. He stated this is often due to intense neighborhood opposition. He added PPL has helped the neighborhood to understand the project and he encourages the commission to support it. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 185 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 5 Ronald Hobson, 4156 Alabama Ave., stated he likes the walkability and reduction in parking, but he does agree with some of the issues noted by neighbors including the mass of the building within the single-family and duplex homes in the area. He added he would appreciate a way to step back the 3rd floor of the Brunswick side so it reduces the façade and blends in with the neighborhood to the west. Andrew Sackrison, 6215 Oxford St., asked if amending the comp plan is a normal occurrence when a project comes forward, and added he is in agreement with the project as presented by PPL. He also asked if there is a formal process for changing the comp plan and noted the land use study is expensive to perform. Tristen Ritter, 6319 Oxford St., thanked the Elmwood neighborhood for all their work on affordable housing. She stated her concern is to preserve the safety of the neighborhood. She stated the height of the building and the fact there is no slope and the density are concerns of hers. She added the walkability and traffic are concerns and streets will need to be plowed in the winter. Claudia Oxley, 2931 Vernon Ave. S., stated she is in support of the project. She is interested in the AMI range and family orientation and the location by light rail station are important, and she feels the density is important in that area. She asks the commission and PPL team to look at reducing the units on the Brunswick side to reduce height. She stated PPL brings strength to this project and the commission needs to acknowledge them from a long-term management of the project and stability and the kind of residents that will be part of the city. The need is urgent and we need to do this now, with a great partner. Cindy Larson, 4321 Coolidge Ave., stated she is a 20 + year resident, and has acted as the environmental commissioner in the city and has been a board member for TC Habitat for Humanity. She stated this is a special opportunity for the city that is very rare and does not come along with support services typically. She supports a 68-unit complex and believes the architecture fits in well. John Heider, 7609 Lake St., stated he is a construction worker and stated the size of the project is too large. He agrees with affordable housing but does not know why it cannot be spread all over St. Louis Park vs. all in one area. Xavier Varecka, 5900 Oxford St., stated he was at the March meeting and asked when the crime rate issues will be addressed in the area, especially with light rail coming in. How asked will this development upset the crime rate in the area. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 186 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 6 Del Lewchuk, 5900 Oxford, stated he is in favor of the project. He bought in the community because of the culture and historical aspect of the neighborhood. He states the project is in violation of the comp plan, and he recommends the commission not rush this and look at the project in depth, so it meets the city’s long-term objectives. Aaron Fisher, 6313 Oxford St., stated he is supportive of affordable housing and is needed in the city and area. He stated the traffic restrictions in Elmwood are a consideration with traffic flow and parking and designation for bikeways in the city plan. Also, the parking restrictions near the roundabout are a consideration, as well as the narrow streets in the area which are also a safety issue and unique to the neighborhood. Shannon Sackrison, 6215 Oxford St., echoed what has been said this evening and they need to scale back the size on the Brunswick side. Sue Budd, 3204 Hillsboro, stated she is in favor of this project and it will bring positive changes, especially with the light rail station. She is impressed and does not think it has been rushed. She is hopeful the commission will support the plan as it. Alex Fracassi, 6220 Oxford St., is concerned with the scale of the elevation. He stated it does not show the project will be on a hill, and there is a hill there, which makes the building too tall. He asked for a two-story design instead of three-story. Lisa Hasting, 3828 Joppa Avenue South, stated it’s easy to approve something not in your neighborhood. She added we do need more affordable housing, but asked how they can ensure will be only families living there and not just individuals. She hopes the building can be two-story, and keep the charm of St. Louis Park, within the design. PPL addressed the concerns of the public. Mr. Wilson presented information on the crime rates with affordable housing, showing that affordable housing owned by a non-profit agency does not increase crime in the area of the housing. He added the height meets the zoning requirements of the city and the images shown are accurate, as that was called into question. He stated the height will not overshadow the surrounding buildings, and no one other than Jonny Pops will be shadowed. Also, the closest house is 132 feet away from the projected building. He added the density is actually one of the best ecological features of the building. Building 20 less units means 20 more families have to travel a much City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 187 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 7 greater distance to get to light rail and walkable and bikeable trails, adding the density is a good thing. He noted a traffic study was completed and there are only 30 more trips per day projected. Peggy Johnson, 2846 Zarthan Ave., asked if the hill will be removed and 30 feet will begin at street level at Brunswick. Abbie Loosen with PPL stated the 33 feet is from the curb cut and up from there. Mike Ritter, 6319 Oxford St., asked if it is possible to see the sources on all 33 studies. Mr. Wilson stated yes, he will forward that information to the city. Xavier Varecka, 5900 Oxford St., stated he has concerns about the crime rate. He hopes the commission will consider placing this information into the record, adding there is no proof or evidence of the information Mr. Wilson provided. Chuck Burrill, 5900 Oxford, noted he was told at March meeting that PPL needed to build a minimum of 80-unit building for this project to be financially helpful for the church. He asked what has changed since then and will it go back up to 80 units. Mitchell Aldrich, 6016 Oxford St., asked about the elevation and the hill. He asked for further explanation on this and the street level at Brunswick. Sue Basill, 6028 Oxford St., stated density seems to be a common theme and she suggested if the church could lower their asking price for the land, all could arrive at design all could be helpful with. She added PPL has been very flexible on all of this, whereas the church has not. Mr. Wilson answered the follow up questions. He noted the church is being paid the appraised value of the site, and PPL typically does not bargain back and forth with churches, so a third party was involved. The church has been consistent on this and this all seemed fair to both sides. He added the feasibility of 80 units was sent to the neighborhood, and that information is available for anyone who wants to review. He stated the costs were too high for each of the 80 units, so it would have been difficult to gather the financing. He added when going over costs, the state will not approve because it makes the project unaffordable. Mr. Walther noted there is no physical change for the parking lot at the site and existing conditions will be allowed to continue on. He added with regard to City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 188 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 8 amendments to the comp plan, there are 1-15 amendments each year, and it is relatively common. Lisa Hasting, 3828 Joppa Avenue South, asked for an explanation of affordable housing. She asked how we will know it will be families that live the city or are singles coming in from other cities. Andrew Sackrison, 6215 Oxford St., wanted to confirm there are 6-7 comp plan changes each year. He asked PPL about including the park across the street within the design elements. Chair Kraft closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dumalag asked if this property will be self-managed by PPL and if they are going after 9% tax credits with the properties. Mr. Wilson stated they are going after 9% tax credits, which will be the primary funding source and they will be doing the property management for the project. Commissioner Beneke asked if there are any important deadlines coming up related to the project. Mr. Walther stated there are two coming up. He stated the city has up to 120 days to respond to an application. The only way to extend the deadline beyond that is if the applicant requests more time. PPL requested an extension and the deadline for the city to act on the application is now July 7, 2020. He stated the planning commission must make a recommendation tonight to advance this to city council for their June 15 meeting, and a second meeting of the council on July 6. The second is the annual application deadline for low income housing tax credits that PPL is trying to meet which is in mid-July. Commissioner Beneke stated he wants to support this project in light of the affordable housing crisis. His only hesitation is in the last revision presented seems the most appropriate for this site and he wondered if there is any other public process appropriate for the project. Commissioner Eckholm stated hearing the compromise on the table as it stands has already put the project at risk and lowering the units to 60 has now lowered the number of folks that can live here. He stated PPL and UCC have made concessions to come to agreement, and he thinks the project needs to move forward as it stands today. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 189 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 9 Commissioner Dumalag stated she is also in full support of the project, adding she reviewed all of the statements from neighbors. This project now happens or it doesn’t, and there are economies of scale that need to be taken into consideration. She stated this project aligns with the city’s strategic priorities and the comp plan. Related to the tax credits, there are many guidelines and compliance that developers need to go through, and the family’s incomes must be reviewed each year. She is in full support of the project. Commissioner Erwin is also in full support of this project as well. She stated she lives in a very diverse area and she agrees St. Louis Park needs more of this. She thanked residents for their civic engagement as well. Chair Kraft added she supports the project as well and she visited the site today. She stated there are taller buildings on three sides and then viewed the homes on Brunswick as well. She stated the project seems in scale and is appropriate and she appreciates the compromises that were made on the height also. She sees further change and development in this area as light rail moves along also. Commissioner Eckholm added with light rail coming and changing building codes allowing for taller buildings nearer to the light rail station, locking in with this three-story project here is important now. Commissioner Dagane stated there is a need for affordable housing for employees in the area and also fully supports the project, and he thanked PPL for this great development. Commissioner Eckholm made a motion, Commissioner Beneke seconded, and recommending amendment of the comp plan, approval of the preliminary and final plat and the PUD subject to recommendations by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. The proposal will be recommended to the city council. 4. Other Business - none 5. Communications Mr. Walther stated the June 17 meeting will be cancelled and the next regularly scheduled meeting is July 1, 2020. He also recognized the new commissioners. 6. Adjournment City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 190 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission June 3, 2020 Page 10 The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 191 CONTACTS NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: DEVELOPER/CLIENT 612.455.5100 abbie.loosen@ppl-inc.org malika.billingslea@ppl-inc.org 1035 E FRANKLIN AVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING ABBIE LOOSEN MALIKA BILLINGSLEA NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: ARCHITECT 612.455.3120 mbarnett@urban-works.com 901 N 3RD STREET, SUITE 145 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE MARY BARNETT NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: CIVIL ENGINEER 763.843.0446 kmatte@bkbm.com 6120 EARLE BROWN DRIVE, SUITE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55430 BKBM ENGINEERS KEITH MATTE NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 612.332.7522 jsymynkywicz@damonfarber.com bdoucette@damonfarber.com 401 2ND AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 DAMON FARBER JESSE SYMYNKYWICZ BRIAN DOUCETTE NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 763.843.0474 jtimm@bkbm.com 6120 EARLE BROWN DRIVE, SUITE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55430 BKBM ENGINEERS JOHN TIMM NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: MECHANICAL ENGINEER 763.270.6316 rms@dte-ls.com 21308 JOHN MILLESS DRIVE, SUITE 104 ROGERS, MN 55374 DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING ROBERT SCHUSTER NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 763.270.6313 arm@dte-ls.com 21308 JOHN MILLESS DRIVE, SUITE 104 ROGERS, MN 55374 DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING AARON MUELLER NAME: CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE No.: EMAIL: INTERIOR DESIGNER 612.455.3100 sdavis@urban-works.com 901 N 3RD ST. SUITE 145 MINNEAPOLIS, MN URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC SARAH DAVIS GENERAL NOTES 1.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. 2.SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE AND SHALL REVIEW THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND INTENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE WORK PRIOR COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR CLARIFICATION. N ROOM NAME # REV NO. SHT. REF. NO. SHT. REF. 24 1 SHT# 3 NO. SHT. REF. - - - - SYMBOLS Section identification SECTION MARKER Cut construction Sheet where elevation appears Elevation identification ELEVATION MARKER Sheet where section appears Cut construction Detail identification Sheet where detail appears DETAIL MARKER Detail identification PRIMARY ELEVATION MARKER Sheet where detail appears Isolates detail area DETAIL MARKER SECONDARY ELEVATION MARKER REVISION MARKER (top of parapet, sill, etc.) DOOR MARKER NORTH MARKER ROOM TAG CEILING TAG WINDOW MARKER DOOR# MATERIAL KEYNOTEWDWKEYKEY/ xxx xxx Subfloor Material 1 FLOOR TRANSITION TAG Subfloor Material 2 HEIGHT - MAT'L CRPADCARD READER TAG AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATOR BUTTON INTERIOR DECORATIVE FIXTURE TAGXX1 XX1 INTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL TAG APPLICABLE CODES: AREA SEPARATION (TABLE 508.4) 1 HR BETWEEN R-2 AND S-2 (W/ AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PER NFPA 13) EGRESS WIDTH PER OCCUPANT SERVED STAIRWAYS (SPRINKLED PER NFPA 13)0.3"/OCC OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS (SPRINKLED PER NFPA 13) 0.2"/OCC EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE A & R OCCUPANCY (SPRINKLED PER NFPA 13)250' S-2 OCCUPANCY (SPRINKLED PER NFPA 13)400' 1 HR BETWEEN A-3 AND R-2 (W/ AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PER NFPA 13) MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE (WITH AMENDMENTS TO IBC (CHAPT. 1305) 2020 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2018 MINNESOTA FIRE CODE (CHAPT. 7510)2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2012 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE (CHAPT. 4715) 2015 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ACCESSIBILITY CODE PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 2017 2009 2000 IBC MFC IMC MPC NEC ANSI 117.1 NFPA 10.1 MN STATE ACCESSIBILITY CODE (CHAPT. 1341) 2020 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE (CHAPT. 1323) 2015 ENERGY MSBC INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2012IFC MINNESOTA MECHANICAL CODE (CHAPT. 1346) 2015MMC ASHRAE 90.1-2010 w/ MN AMENDMENTS FAIR HOUSING ACT BUILDING INFORMATION: CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE 5A OCCUPANCY GROUP S-2 PARKINGR-2 RESIDENTIAL FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS: STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 HR BEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR 1 HR BEARING WALLS - INTERIOR 1 HR NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS - EXTERIOR (TABLE 602) <5' FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1 HR 10'><30' FIRE SEP. DIST. 1 HR <30' FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 0 NONBEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS - INTERIOR FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 1 HR SEE SECTION 602 ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1 HR FIRE SEPARATION ASSEMBLIES 2 HRSTAIRWAY ENCLOSURES 2 HRELEVATOR SHAFT 90 MIN. DOOR ON HOLD-OPENELEVATOR LOBBY 1 HRMECHANICAL ROOMS 2 HRTRASH CHUTE 1 HRUNIT SEPARATION 1 HRCOMMON STORAGE 2 HROTHER SHAFTS 5'><10' FIRE SEPARATION DIST. 1 HR © URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2020901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PUD RESUBMITTAL 05.27.2020 6/9/2020 6:24:33 PMC:\!Revit Project Files\19-0037 A20 Flat Roof 3 Story Central_mary.barnett.rvt3700 Alabama Avenue S, St. Louis Park, MN05/08/2020 19-0037 SD MEB MEB TITLE SHEET G001PPL Union Congregational HousingPPL - UCC Housing May 27, 2020 Planned Unit Development STALL TYPE SUBLEVEL 1 ON STREET SURFACE TOTAL PARKING Compact Parking Stall 10 0 0 10 Double HC Parking Stall 4 0 0 4 Parallel Parking Stall 0 11 0 11 Standard Parking Stall 55 0 10 65 Grand total 69 11 10 90 PARKING STALLS UNIT COUNTAREA SUMMARY GROSS AREA SCHEDULE LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE SUBLEVEL 1 24,933 SF LEVEL 1 25,052 SF LEVEL 2 25,052 SF LEVEL 3 25,052 SF Grand total: 4 100,090 SF UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 TOTAL UNITS 0BR 1 1 1 3 1BR 4 4 4 12 2BR 8 11 11 30 3BR 5 5 5 15 18 21 21 60 UNIT TYPE LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 AREA TOTAL 0BR 1 1 1 1,116 SF 3 1BR 4 4 4 7,659 SF 12 2BR 8 11 11 29,700 SF 30 3BR 5 5 5 19,228 SF 15 Grand total: 60 18 21 21 57,703 SF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - x.xx.20xxDESIGN DEVELOPMENT- x.xx.20xxPUD RESUBMITTAL - 5.27.2020PRICING - 5.8.2020PUD RESUBMITTAL - 4.24.2020PUD - 3.2.2020● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● X ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - x.xx.20xxDESIGN DEVELOPMENT- x.xx.20xxPUD RESUBMITTAL - 5.27.2020PRICING - 5.8.2020PUD RESUBMITTAL - 4.24.2020PUD - 3.2.2020● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● L500 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L501 LANDSCAPE DETAILS E100 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN A001.0 SUBLEVEL 1 - OVERALL PLAN A101.0 LEVEL 1 PLAN - OVERALL A102.0 LEVEL 2 PLAN - OVERALL A103.0 LEVEL 3 PLAN - OVERALL A104.0 LEVEL 4 PLAN - OVERALL A201 ROOF PLAN - OVERALL A301 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A303 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A304 BUILDING ELEVATIONS G001 TITLE SHEET G003 BUILDING SYSTEMS AR901 CODE REQUIRED SIGNAGE AL101 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AL102 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT PLAN AL103 SHADOW STUDY AL104 BLOCK ELEVATION STUDY SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY SURVEY. LOT DIVISION SURVEY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT. FINAL PLAT C100 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION AND EROSOIN CONTROL PLAN C200 GRADING, DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL PLAN C300 UTILITY PLAN C400 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C500 CIVIL DETAILS C501 CIVIL DETAILS C600 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN L010 GENERAL NOTES & SCHEDULES L011 REFERNCE NOTE & PLANT SCHEDULES L012 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN L110 OVERALL SITE PLAN L111 ENLARGED SITE PLAN - COURTYARD L120 OVERALL SITE PLAN - DORA EXHIBIT L140 OVERALL TREE PLAN L141 OVERALL SHRUB & PERENNIAL PLAN L142 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN - COURTYARD City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 192 P-02 A3011 A302 A302 A301 3 1 3 ALABAMA AVENUE SBRUNSWICK AVENUE SOXFORD STREET 37TH STREET W 2-STORY FRAME HOUSEGARAGE GARAGE EXISTING ALLEY TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING PARKING LOT TO REMAIN 2-STORYFRAME HOUSENEW NARTHEX; REFER TO DRAWINGS BY PERKINS & WILL A302 2A3012 A3032 A3033 A303 1 A304 1 A304 2 A304 3 10 PARKING STALLS DRIVE DOWN TO SUBLEVEL PARKING PROPOSED 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING 5'-0"TRASHPROPERTY LINE6 ON STREET PARKING STALLS5 ON STREET PARKING STALLSSHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED SHARED 14 SHARED PARKING STALLS W/ HOUSINGAL104 1 AL104 AL1044 AL104 3 2 15'-1 1/4"27'-5 3/8"14'-9 1/8"32'-5 1/4"12'-1 3/8"32'-7 1/8" 56'-8 3/4"26'-6"© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2020901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PUD RESUBMITTAL 05.27.2020 6/9/2020 6:24:33 PMC:\!Revit Project Files\19-0037 A20 Flat Roof 3 Story Central_mary.barnett.rvt3700 Alabama Avenue S, St. Louis Park, MN05/08/2020 19-0037 SD MEB MEB ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AL101PPL Union Congregational Housing1" = 20'-0"AL101 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN1 STALL TYPE SUBLEVEL 1 ON STREET SURFACE TOTAL PARKING Compact Parking Stall 10 0 0 10 Double HC Parking Stall 4 0 0 4 Parallel Parking Stall 0 11 0 11 Standard Parking Stall 55 0 10 65 Grand total 69 11 10 90 BIKE RACK TYPE COUNT ULTRA SPACE SAVER WALL MOUNTED 14 ULTRA SPACE SAVER WALL MOUNTED 14 ULTRA SPACE SAVER WALL MOUNTED 14 ULTRA SPACE SAVER WALL MOUNTED 14 Grand total: 4 56 PARKING STALLS BIKE RACK TYPE COUNT DERO WALL RACK 1 Grand total: 43 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopment Page 193 $/$%$0$$9(18(6%5816:,&.$9(18(62;)25'675((77+675((7:(;,67,1*&+85&+'5,9(352326('6725<$3$570(17%8,/',1*=$57+$1$9(6&2/25$'2$9(65$,/52$'$9((;,67,1*$//(<(;,67,1*$//(<(;,67,1*$//(<(;,67,1*$//(<)8785(:22''$/($9(18(/,*+75$,/67$7,210$,1(175<&('$5/$.(75$,/-211<3236&21'20,1,8065(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/5(6,'(17,$/02725&203$1<&(17(53$5.3$5.72:1+286(672:1+286(685%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'+%0(%$5&+,7(&785$/&217(;73/$1$/5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK $/6,7(&217(;73/$1City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 194 85%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'0(%0(%6+$'2:678'<$/5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK$/635,1*)$//(48,12; $0$/635,1*)$//(48,12;30$/635,1*)$//(48,12;30$/6800(562/67,&( $0$/6800(562/67,&(30$/6800(562/67,&(30 $/12967 $0$/1296730$/1296730$/-$167 $0$/-$16730$/-$16730City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 195 %5816:,&.$/$%$0$7+$9(2;)25'$/$%$0$%5816:,&.7+$9(2;)25'85%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'0(%0(%%/2&.(/(9$7,21678'<$/5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK $/6,7( 2;)25' $/6,7( %5816:,&. $/6,7( 7+ $/6,7( $/$%$0$City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 196 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 197 City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 198 D2D1D3D4D5D6D7D8D9D10D11D12D13D14E1E2E3OUTLINE OF PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTOUTLINE OF PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTEXISTING TREE TOREMAINEXISTING TREE TOBE REMOVEDEXISTING TREE TOBE REMOVEDWEST 37TH STREETALABAMA AVENUE SOUTHBRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTHALLEY3700 ALABAMAAVENUESHED4'0" HEIGHT TREE PROTECTION FENCINGSEE DETAIL 1/L500EXISTING TREE SCHEDULEIDCOMMON NAMESIZESIGNIFICANCESTATUSREMOVALD1ELM 3NONE REMOVED2SPRUCE 2 NONE REMOVED3V.I.F 2NONE REMOVED4SPRUCE2NONE REMOVED5ELM 3NONE REMOVED6ELM 3NONE REMOVED7PINE3NONE REMOVED8MAPLE 14SIGNIFICANT REMOVED9BIRCH7SIGNIFICANT REMOVED10BIRCH8SIGNIFICANT REMOVED11V.I.F 5NONEREMOVED12V.I.F4NONEREMOVED13V.I.F.8SIGNIFICANTREMOVED14MAPLE8NONEREMOVEE1CRABAPPLE3NONERETAIN / PROTECTE2BIRCH3NONERETAIN / PROTECTE3CRABAPPLE3NONERETAIN / PROTECT81TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES EXISTING TREES37TOTAL DIAMETER INCHES SIGNIFICANT TREEREMOVALNORTH0SCALE:1"=12'12' 24'36'© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANTREVISIONSDATEPROJECT #PHASEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY2/27/2020 11:02:37 AM19-0037 A20 ARCH_detached.rvtProject Address04/24/202019-0587PUDBDJSPPL Union Congregational HousingPUD RESUBMITTAL04.24.2020PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522TREEPRESERVATIONPLANL012TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONSTOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OFEXISTING TREES: 81" TOTAL INCHESTOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OFSIGNIFICANT TREES REMOVED: 37" TOTAL INCHESTOTAL DIAMETER INCHES OFREPLACEMENT TREES: 15" TOTAL INCHESTREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION NOTES:1. ANY TREE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALIX (WILLOW), BOXELDER, SIBERIANELM AND BLACK LOCUST IS CONSIDERED TO BE SIGNIFICANT UNDER THELANDSCAPING SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IF IT IS AT LEAST 5 CALIPERINCHES FOR DECIDUOUS TREES AND 6 CALIPER INCHES FOR CONIFERS. ASPEN,COTTONWOOD OR SILVER MAPLE IS CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT IF IT IS AT LEAST12 INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH).2. TREES TO BE SAVED MUST BE PHYSICALLY PROTECTED FROM HARM ORDESTRUCTION BY THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS:xBEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR GRADING ACTIVITY OCCURS, AN ORANGExSAFETY FENCE THAT IS 4 FEET HIGH MUST BE PLACED AROUND THE DRIPLINE BORDER OF TREES TO BE SAVED.xNOTHING MAY BE STORED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE.xCHANGES IN SOIL CHEMISTRY MUST BE PREVENTED.xDRAINAGE PATTERNS MAY NOT CHANGE THE SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT OFTREES TO BE SAVED.xPRUNING OF OAK AND ELM TREES MUST NOT TAKE PLACE FROM MAY 1THROUGH JULY 31.3. REFER TO 1/L500 FOR TREE PROTECTION DETAIL.4. SEE L140 - OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR FINAL TREE COUNT, SPECIESSELECTION AND PLACEMENT THROUGHOUT THE SITE.City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 199 WEST 37TH STREETALABAMA AVENUE SOUTHBRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTHPATIOACTIVITYLAWNPLAYGROUNDPOLLINATORGARDENSTORMWATERGARDENDORA BOUNDARY(411 SF)ALLEYUNION CONGRESSIONALHOUSINGUNION CONGRESSIONALCHURCHEXISTINGGARAGEEXISTINGGARAGEGRILLGRILLBIKEPARKINGBIKEPARKINGENTRYBENCHDORABOUNDARY(7,374 SF)NORTH0SCALE:1"=16'16' 32'48'© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANTREVISIONSDATEPROJECT #PHASEDRAWN BYCHECKED BY2/27/2020 11:02:37 AM19-0037 A20 ARCH_detached.rvtProject Address04/24/202019-0587PUDBDJSPPL Union Congregational HousingPUD RESUBMITTAL04.24.2020PRELIMINARYNOT FORCONSTRUCTION401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522OVERALL SITEPLAN - DORAEXHIBITL120DORA INFORMATIONTOTAL PROJECT AREA:51,810 SFMINIMUM DORA AREA:6,217 SF (12%)DORA AREA - MAIN ENTRY: 411 SFDORA AREA - COURTYARD: 7,374 SF TOTAL DORA AREA: 7,785 SF (15%)City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 200 ':':':':':':':3':':':*(1(5$/3/$1127(6 ',0(16,216$7(;7(5,25:$//6$5(722876,'()$&(2)6+($7+,1*',0(16,216$7,17(5,25:$//6$5(72)$&(2):$//81/(6627+(5:,6(127('',0(16,216$781,7'(0,6,1*$5(72&(17(5/,1(2):$//6(;7(1'$//6+$)767281'(56,'(2)522)6+($7+,1*257232)522)3(1(75$7,216:+(5($33/,&$%/($//81,76$5(7<3(%$&&(66,%/(81/(6627+(5:,6(127('0$,17$,1 0,1&/($5+(,*+7$73$5.,1*$5($6,1',&$7('213/$16$//27+(53$5.,1*$5($66+$//3529,'( 0,1&/($5+(,*+7',0(16,216$7&08$5(72)$&(2)&0881/(6627+(5:,6(127('123(1(75$7,2162523(1,1*6$//2:(',16+$)7:$//681/(667+(<(;35(66/<6(59(7+(6+$)7',0(16,216$7&$67,13/$&(&21&5(7(:$//6$5(72)$&(2):$//81/(6627+(5:,6(127(' $//5(6,'(17,$/'(0,6,1*:$//6$7:22'678'/2&$7,216$5(7<3(999$99$$1'9%+5),5(5$7,1*:,7+$&2867,&5$7,1*$//5(6,'(17,$/&255,'25:$//6$7:22'678'/2&$7,216$5(7<3(:+5),5(5$7,1*:,7+$&2867,&5$7,1*81/(6627+(5:,6(127('3529,'(:$//%/2&.,1*$7.,7&+(1:$//6$1'$//%$7+5220/2&$7,216,1',&$7('216+((7$53529,'(287/(76)25(/(&75,&9(+,&/(&+$5*,1*$6,1',&$7('213/$16 (9 ),1$//2&$7,21672%(&225',1$7(':,7+(/(&75,&$/5()(572.(<127(6$$1'$3529,'(&21'8,7)25$'',7,21$/)8785(&+$5*,1*67$7,216.(<127(6 $$$$ $%&'()* 6)%GUP 6)/REE\6)%GUP6)%GUP6)%GUP 6)6WDLU$6)%GUP6)%GUP6)%GUP6)%GUP6)6WXGLR 6)%GUP6)%GUP$$$$$$$$6):HOOQHVV6)/DXQGU\ 6)7UDVK 6)&LUFXODWLRQ6)%GUP 6)%GUP6)%GUP6)2IILFH$$$$6)6WRUDJH6)7RLOHW$$5HGXQGDQW5RRP&RPPXQLW\5RRP 6)%GUP6)%GUP6)%GUP3$5.,1*67$//66)6WXGLR85%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'0(%0(%/(9(/3/$129(5$//$5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK$ )/225'5$,1 &225',1$7(Z0(&+$1,&$/$1'3/80%,1*$ 75$6+&+87(2))6(7'(*5((0$;3(5/(9(/ &225',1$7(9(17,1*:0(&+$1,&$/$ 75$16)250(5$ 602.(*8$5'$723(1(/(9$725/2%%<$ 67$1'3,3($66(0%/< $/(9(/ 29(5$//%,.(5$&.7<3(&28178/75$63$&(6$9(5:$//02817('8/75$63$&(6$9(5:$//02817('8/75$63$&(6$9(5:$//02817('8/75$63$&(6$9(5:$//02817('*UDQGWRWDO %,.(5$&.7<3(&2817'(52:$//5$&.*UDQGWRWDO 67$//7<3( 68%/(9(/685)$&(3$5.,1*727$/3$5.,1*&RPSDFW3DUNLQJ6WDOO'RXEOH+&3DUNLQJ6WDOO6WDQGDUG3DUNLQJ6WDOO*UDQGWRWDO 3$5.,1*67$//6City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 201 5()(572%8,/',1*6<67(06)25$'',7,21$/(;7(5,25:$//$1'0$7(5,$/,1)250$7,215()(57263(&,),&$,721)25'(7$,/('(;7(5,250$7(5,$/,1)250$7,21*(1(5$/(;7(5,25127(6 .(<127(6 /(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) $9(5$*(*5$'( ((((( (((((((((((((((($(((( $29(5$//(/(9$7,21 6)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 /(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) $%&'()*29(5$//(/(9$7,216)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 $9(5$*(*5$'( ( ((((((((((((((((( /(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) ()*29(5$//(/(9$7,216)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 $9(5$*(*5$'( ((((((( ((( ((85%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'0(%0(%%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK$ 0(7$/3$5$3(7&$3( %5$9,66,6721(%$6(:,7+&$676721(&$3( &(0(17678&&27$1( ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 5(9($/%5,&.5('( 0$6215<%5,&.9(1((5( 6816+$'( '$5.%521=(( $12',=('$/80,1806725()5217(175<6<67(0 '$5.%521=(( 0$*,&3$./289(5 ),1,6+720$7&+$'-$&(17( ),%(5*/$66:,1'2: :+,7(( ),%(5*/$66(175<'225 ,168/$7('( ,168/$7('+2//2:0(7$/'225 3$,17720$7&+$'-$&(170$7(5,$/( ),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6+$.(6,',1* $1RUWK(OHYDWLRQ &RORU $(DVW(OHYDWLRQ &RORU $(DVW ,QVLGH(OHYDWLRQ &RORUCity council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 202 5()(572%8,/',1*6<67(06)25$'',7,21$/(;7(5,25:$//$1'0$7(5,$/,1)250$7,215()(57263(&,),&$,721)25'(7$,/('(;7(5,250$7(5,$/,1)250$7,21*(1(5$/(;7(5,25127(6 .(<127(6 /(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) ($9(5$*(*5$'( ((( ( (((((( (((( (((((((29(5$//(/(9$7,216)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 ((((/(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) $%&'()*(($9(5$*(*5$'( ((( ((((( 29(5$//(/(9$7,216)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 (((/(9(/ /(9(/ 68%/(9(/ /(9(/ 522) ()($9(5$*(*5$'( ( (((((((29(5$//(/(9$7,216)),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6,',1* ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 6721(0$6215< */$=,1*:,1'2:6 %5,&. 678&&2 85%$1:25.6$5&+,7(&785(//& 1257+7+,5'675((768,7(0,11($32/,601&2168/7$1757*1.2.3&7=5(9,6,216'$7(352-(&73+$6('5$:1%<&+(&.('%<348+47(43879(8.4338'5(68%0,77$/ 30& ?5HYLW3URMHFW)LOHV? $)ODW5RRI6WRU\&HQWUDOBPDU\EDUQHWWUYW$ODEDPD$YHQXH66W/RXLV3DUN01 6'0(%0(%%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$5519RMSR(SRKVIKEXMSREP-SYWMRK( %5$9,66,6721(%$6(:,7+&$676721(&$3( &(0(17678&&27$1( ),%(5&(0(17/$36,',1* 5(9($/%5,&.5('( 0$6215<%5,&.9(1((5( 6816+$'( '$5.%521=(( ),%(5*/$66:,1'2: :+,7(( 29(5+($'*$5$*('225( ),%(5*/$66(175<'225 ,168/$7('( ,168/$7('+2//2:0(7$/'225 3$,17720$7&+$'-$&(170$7(5,$/( ),%(5&(0(17:22'/22.6+$.(6,',1* $6RXWK(OHYDWLRQ &RORU $:HVW(OHYDWLRQ &RORU $:HVW ,QVLGH(OHYDWLRQ &RORUCity council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Union Park Flats redevelopmentPage 203 Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 15, 2020 Action agenda item: 8b Executive summary Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Recommended action: **Due to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, this item is considered essential business and is categorized as a Required Action** •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the conditional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Policy consideration: Does the project meet all zoning requirements for a CUP? Summary: The applicant, David Anderson, on behalf of Frauenshuh Inc, requests a conditional use permit in order to construct a bank with two 24-hour drive-up ATMs. The bank will also include a drive-up teller window that will operate during normal business hours. In-vehicle sales or service and 24-hour business operations are allowed with a conditional use permit in the C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district. The existing retail building that currently contains Knollwood Liquor Store and Papa Murphy’s Pizza would be torn down and replaced with a new two-story building, and the existing retaining wall would be reconstructed. Bremer Bank would relocate to the site. Landscaping and site lighting will be improved as part of the project. The applicant held a videoconference neighborhood meeting on May 13, 2020. Questions were asked about site lighting, access, the future of the existing Bremer Bank building, and construction timelines. The planning commission held a public hearing on May 20, 2020, and no public comments were made. The planning commission discussed the building and traffic flow, and recommended approval 7 to 0. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Aerial of project site Resolution May 20, 2020 planning commission minutes Development plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Jennifer Monson, senior planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Discussion Background: The applicant, David Anderson, on behalf of Frauenshuh Inc, requests a conditional use permit in order to construct a bank with two 24-hour drive-up ATMs. The bank will also include a drive-up teller window that will operate during normal business hours. In- vehicle sales or service and 24-hour business operations are allowed with a conditional use permit in the C-1 neighborhood commercial zoning district. The existing retail building that currently contains Knollwood Liquor Store and Papa Murphy’s Pizza would be torn down and replaced with a new two-story building, and the existing retaining wall would be reconstructed. Bremer Bank would relocate to the site. Landscaping and site lighting will be improved as part of the project. Present considerations: The site meets all zoning requirements of the C-1 zoning district including setbacks, height, architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and parking, including bicycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations. Site circulation: The site will be accessed from a new two-way driveway on Texas Avenue and the existing driveway on 37th Street. Customers would enter the drive-up ATM queue from the northwest corner of the building, move counterclockwise around the building to the teller window and ATMs, and exit south onto 37th Street or north through the one-way drive aisle on the east side of the building and out onto Texas Avenue. The applicant requests city council approve a conditional use permit to permit in-vehicle sales or service for a drive thru teller window and two drive-up ATMS. The applicant intends to operate the drive-up ATMs 24 hours per day. Conditional use permit analysis: In-vehicle sales or service require a CUP in the C-1 district, and must meet the following conditions: 1.Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from said parcel by a building wall. This condition is met. 2.Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all yard requirements. This condition is met. 3.This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service of adjacent streets and intersections. This condition is met. Staff anticipate no significant negative impacts to the existing level of service to streets adjacent to the project site. 4.The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. This condition is met. A pedestrian crosswalk connects the public sidewalk and ADA parking to the building entrance. 5.Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. This condition is met. The site is accessed City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) from Texas Avenue. 6. Any canopy as part of this use shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the principal structure. This condition is met. The canopy uses the same materials and architectural style as the building. 7. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located, and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this requirement. This condition is met. The proposed bank is in conformance with the land use guidance in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Uses in the C-1 district that operate 24 hours a day must also be located a minimum of 25 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. The proposed site plan meets this condition. All CUP applications must meet the following general conditions: 1. Consistency with plans. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for commercial uses and the proposed bank presents no conflicts with city plans or policy goals. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. Staff anticipate no adverse impacts on the neighborhood due to this project. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed use and site work meet all zoning code requirements. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Services will not be adversely impacted by the proposed building and site improvements. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The proposed site plan meets city requirements for landscaping, circulation, setbacks, and other zoning requirements. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. The proposed design is consistent with all city plans. Public outreach: The applicant held a videoconference with the neighborhood on May 13, 2020. Mailers advertising the meeting were sent to all properties within 350 feet of the project site, and city social media accounts and the city website publicized the meeting. Five residents attended the meeting. Questions were asked about site lighting, access, the future of the existing Bremer Bank building, and construction timelines. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Planning commission: The planning commission held a public hearing on May 20, 2020, and no public comments were made. The planning commission discussed the building and traffic flow. There were discussions about better site circulation, and requests that the plans be revised prior to council review. The planning commission recommended approval 7 to 0. Since the planning commission meeting, the site plan has been revised to provide better site circulation to reduce the likelihood of trips into the surrounding residential neighborhood, and it is as previously described in this report. Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions included in the resolution. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Aerial of project site City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving a conditional use permit for 7924 Highway 7 Whereas, David Anderson, representing Frauenshuh Inc, applied for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing a new building and drive-up ATM at 7924 Highway 7; the property is legally described as follows, to-wit: Lots 25, 26, 27, and 28, Except the East 26 feet of said Lots; and Lots 29, 30, 31, and 32, All in Block 312, “Rearrangement of St Louis Park”, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Whereas, the property is guided Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Whereas, the property is located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Whereas, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow in-vehicle sales on the site. Findings Whereas, the city council has determined that the application meets the conditions for in- vehicle sales in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district, including: 1.The drive-through facility is more than 100 feet from any parcel zoned residential and used for residential use. 2.The site plan provides for stacking of six cars per customer service point and complies with all yard requirements. 3.The drive-through facility use will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service of adjacent streets and intersections. 4.The drive-through facility is designed so that it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. 5.The site has access to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. 6.The drive-through canopy design is compatible with the architectural design and materials of the principal structure. 7.The drive-through facility use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located. Whereas, the uses on the property are a bank, which is a permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, and in-vehicle sales, which is permitted with a conditional use permit in the C-1 zoning district. Whereas, the in-vehicle sales use of this property is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Whereas, the in-vehicle sales use is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. Whereas, the in-vehicle sales use is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. Whereas, the in-vehicle sales use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Whereas, the project plans are consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. Whereas, the project plans are consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. Whereas, the contents of Case No. 20-07-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the record of decision for this case. Conclusion Now therefore be it resolved that the conditional use permit is hereby approved and accepted by the city council as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, city plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, approved official exhibits and city code. 2. More detailed stormwater plans shall be provided for city review and approval by city engineering staff before building permits are issued. 3. Construction and staging information shall be provided to staff to the city before or when building permits are submitted and before the city will issue the permits. 4. All new utility service structures shall be buried. 5. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the city's assent form and the official exhibits. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. c. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the City's assent form and the official exhibits. b. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and approved by the city Engineer. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) c. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 125% of the cost for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, etc.) and landscaping. 7. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All city noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the City Engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 8. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the official exhibits. 9. Upon city approval of and acceptance of the public sidewalks, the developer shall provide a one-year warranty and cash escrow or letter of credit for 25% of the final construction costs of the public sidewalk. 10. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. The conditional use permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 15, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 20, 2020 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther, Mara Strand GUESTS: David Anderson, Frauenshuh, Inc; Jon Fahning, Bremer Bank; Jackie Miller, RSP Architects; Vicki VanDell, Loucks Associates 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2020 Commissioner Beneke made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Dumalag seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 3.Public Hearings A.Bremer Bank Conditional Use Permit Applicant: David Anderson, Frauenshuh Case Nos: 20-07-CUP Ms. Kramer presented the report. The applicant, Mr. Anderson of Frauenshuh, is applying for a CUP to build Bremer Bank and drive- thru at 7924 Highway 7. The area is a little over an acre in size. The property is guided commercial use. The existing building would be removed and the bank built on the site. The CUP is requested to build the bank with two 24-hour drive-up ATMs. The plan meets the city’s vehicular, bicycle, and electric vehicle charging parking requirements. Traffic circulation was noted, with a possibility of modifying the proposed site plan to provide an entrance-only from 37th Street and two-way access to Texas Avenue, however Ms. Kramer noted there will be more discussion prior to going to city council to present. The bank will have a drive-thru teller window and drive-thru ATMs. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 10 Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP) Ms. Kramer reviewed the CUP requirements for 24-hour operations and in-vehicle sales in the C-1 district and general CUP requirements. The applicant held an online neighborhood meeting on May 13, 2020. Commissioner Erwin asked about the fence or high wall on the north side of the property. She asked if that is existing or new being proposed on the site. Ms. Kramer stated the design Commissioner Erwin referred to shows the reconstructed wall, built into the hill. The existing wall will be rebuilt, and a fence added per the building code. She added the lighting plan shows no spillover onto adjacent properties and was approved by city staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what the wall is made of, and also if it was a living wall, as it looked like vines are growing on it. Ms. Kramer stated the developer has proposed ivy and creeping greenery on the wall as part of the landscape plan. She stated the materials of the wall meets the city’s architectural material standards. Commissioner Eckholm asked how much traffic is anticipated moving from Knollwood to this new site, across the road. He stated this will be more of a direct cross, but he is concerned about the amount of traffic there, and with bike lanes and the future LRT station. He stated he wants to understand how traffic will impact the area. Ms. Kramer stated there has been no traffic studies on the changes to the site plan, but added this is something staff will look at before presenting to city council. Mr. Walther stated staff anticipate a reduction in overall trip traffic to the site. Chair Kraft opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson stated this feels like a straightforward project with no red flags. He appreciated hearing the traffic will be reviewed a bit more, along with the cross traffic. Overall, it’s a handsome building and fits into the neighborhood well, and he is excited about it, and will fully support it. Commissioner Robertson made a motion, and Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded, recommending approval of the Bremer Bank CUP. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ST. LOUIS PARK SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR CONCEPTST. LOUIS PARK, MN 04.20.20 1PG Front Perspective from Highway 7 and Texas Ave City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP)Page 11 ST. LOUIS PARK SITE PLAN AND EXTERIOR CONCEPTST. LOUIS PARK, MN 04.20.20 2PG Entry Perspective from Texas Ave. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP)Page 12 NO PARKING EVCSEVCS 37TH STREET WESTTEXAS AVE. S.ALLEY24.00 18.00 9.00 5.00 12.00 5.00 8.00 24.00 5.00 DRIVE-THROUGH SETBACK LINE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 18.00 18.00 9.00 24.00 6 11 5 67.73 12.00 8.00 7.4710.94 15.62 9.87 12.00 TRASH ENCLOSURE 12.00 3.00 1.50 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 2.00 1.50MATCH INTO EXISTING RETAINING WALL MATCH INTO EXISTING RETAINING WALL FLAT CURB PYLON SIGN BIKE RACKS (4) ADA RAMP ADA PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FLAT CURB DRIVE-THROUGH CANOPY 2'R12'R 12'R 2'R 2'R 5'R 7'R 2'R 5'R 5'R 5'R 20'R 8'R 5'R 15'R 10'R 5'R 15'R B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE APRON SEE DETAIL MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTERMATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ADA PARKING SIGN/BOLLARD COMBO-TYP SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER 2.00 3.00 CONCRETE APRON SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PAVEMENT 15'R CONCRETE PAD SIGN AT DRIVE THRU EXIT TO READ "YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC" "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN 22.00 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com Plotted: 06 /03 / 2020 9:55 AMW:\2020\20001\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANOUCKSL QUALITY CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS CADD QUALIFICATION HIGHWAY 7 FINANCIAL PLAZA ST. LOUIS PARK, MN RSP ARCHITECTS 1220 MARSHALL ST NE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Vicki J. Van Dell - PE Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 41352 Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.20001.00 VJV MJS VJV NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N 04/20/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL 05/12/2020 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL 06/03/2020 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL C3-1 GRADING & EROSION C2-1 SITE PLAN L1-1 C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS C1-2 DEMOLITION PLAN C4-1 C8-2 CIVIL DETAILS L2-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE DETAILS C8-3 CIVIL DETAILS UTILITY PLAN PH-1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CONTROL PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 SITE PLAN C2-1N 1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' AND DRIVE AISLE IS 24 ' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 5.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. 8. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING SETBACKS. CURRENT ZONING: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING: C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AREA:23,399 SF DISTURBED AREA:22,397 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 20,052 SF (85.7%) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 19,280 (82.4%) TOTAL PARKING: 22 STALLS PROVIDED (1 ADA PARKING STALL, 1 EVCS STALL LEVEL 1 AND 1 EVCS STALL LEVEL 2. CONDUIT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL EVCS STALLS.) 1. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. 5. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 6. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 7. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL SHEET(S) OF THE PROJECT PLANS. 8. ALL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, APPLICATIONS AND FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED. 10.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE ALL SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. 11.ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED GRADES WHERE DISTURBED AND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY OWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 12.EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY WENCK ASSOCIATES, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED 02/05/2020. 13.SUBGRADE PREPARATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2112. THE TOP 3 FEET SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 100% OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. 14.AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE MNDOT 2211 CLASS 5. COMPACTION SHALL BE BY THE QUALITY COMPACTION METHOD. 15.PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2360 WITH MIX DESIGN AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS. COMPACTION SHALL BE BY THE ORDINARY COMPACTION METHOD. 16.CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. CURING SHALL BE BY THE MEMBRANE CURING METHOD. EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 200 FEET AT ALL FIXED OBJECTS. CONTRACTIONS JOINTS EVERY 10 FEET. 17.CONCRETE WALK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2521. CURING SHALL BE BY THE MEMBRANE CURING METHOD. EXPANSION JOINTS AT ALL FIVES OBJECTS. CONTRACTION JLINTS EVERY 5 FEET. 18.WORKING HOURS ARE 7 AM - 7 PM (MONDAY - FRIDAY) AND 9 AM - 7 PM ( SATURDAY.) A 48 HOUR NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR SATURDAY WORK. 19.THE CONTRACTOR MUST HAVE A CITY LICENSE. 20.A CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO WORKING WITHIN CITY ROW. SITE NOTES SITE DATA GENERAL NOTES PAVEMENT LEGEND TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 Gopher State One Call CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! CONCRETE SIDEWALK/PAVEMENT STANDARD DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. City council meeting of June 15, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Bremer Bank conditional use permit (CUP)Page 13