HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020/12/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DEC. 21, 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 and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. The chief administrator
has determined that in-person council or commission/committee meetings are not feasible at
this time due to the pandemic.
Economic development authority (EDA) at 6:20 p.m.; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m.
All members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Monday, Dec. 21 city
council/ EDA meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present
at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to
view the agenda and reports.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and
on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). For audio only call +1.312.535.8110
and use access code 372 106 61.
Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular meeting about
items on the agenda should call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. 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 and must relate to an item on the current city
council agenda.
•952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a-4j
•952.562.288 7 – item 8a – 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies , & 2021-30 CIP
•952.562.288 8 – item 8b – Ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
•952.562.2886 – item 8c – 2021 non -union employee compensation
6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1.Call to order
2.Roll call
3.Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Dec. 7, 2020
7.New business
7a. 2021 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the 2021 final HRA
levy.
Meeting of Dec. 21, 2020
City c ouncil agenda
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement recognition for Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
2b. Recognition of donations
3. Approval of minutes -- None
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.)
4a. A dopt Resolution to recognize Jon Parker for his 29 years of service.
4b . A uthorize the Solar Sundown pilot cost sharing program for 2021.
4c . A dopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$11,036.67 for the street maintenance project (Area 4) with GMH Asphalt Corporation –
city contract No. 51-20.
4d . Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from Max and Lillian Fallek
for the purchase of a memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Max
and Lillian Fallek and family, a $2,200 donation from Jeffrey Raison and Marilyn Reiter
for the purchase of a memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring
nature, a $2,200 donation from Sheri Salloway Yarosh for the purchase of a memorial
bench in Wolfe Park honoring Polly and Louis Salloway and Adam Hauf, and a $100
donation from Leslie Marcus, a $20 donation from Karen Campbell and a $20 donation
from Adrienne Berman for park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills
Nature Center.
4e . Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 1815 Melrose Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0039
4f . A ppoint Council Member Lynette Dumalag as representative, and Council Member
Margaret Rog as alternate to the SWLRT Community Works Steering Committee.
4g . A dopt Resolution providing preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing
revenue bonds to finance the CB SLP Housing (CommonBond) project.
4h . Adopt Resolution designating polling places for the 2021 e lection cycle.
4i . Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Nov. 18, 2020
4j . Nov. 2020 monthly financial report - no action required at this time.
5. Boards and commissions
5a. Reappointment of representative to Fire Civil Service Commission
Recommended action: Motion to reappoint William MacMillan to the Fire Civil Service
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2023.
6. Public hearings -- None
Meeting of Dec. 21, 2020
City c ouncil agenda
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement
plan (CIP)
Recommended action:
• Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2021 budgets and authorizing the 2021
final property tax levy.
• Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2021 final HRA levy.
• Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2021-2030 capital improvement plan.
8b. First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 pertaining to zoning and set second reading for January 4, 2021.
8c. 2021 non -union employee compensation
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution confirming a 2% general increase for
non-union employees effective 1/1/21 and approving the city manager’s salary for 2021.
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: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Dec. 7, 2020
1. Call to order
Vice President Brausen called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
2. Roll call
Commissioners present: Vice President Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Larry Kraft, Nadia
Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano
Commissioners absent: President Rachel Harris
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Community Development
Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources
Director (Ms. Deno), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Senior Management
Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas)
3. Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Oct. 5, 2020
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to approve the
Oct. 5, 2020 meeting minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Harris absent).
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Nov. 2, 2020
Commissioner Dumalag noted her name was misspelled one time in the minutes.
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Rog, to approve the
Nov. 2, 2020 meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Harris absent).
4. Approval of agenda and disbursement claims
It was moved by Commissioner Dumalag, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve
the EDA disbursement claims for the period of Oct. 24 – Nov. 27, 2020.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Harris absent).
Economic development authority meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 7, 2020
5. Reports - none
6. Old business - none
7. New business - none
8. Communications – none
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary Tim Brausen, vice president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: 2021 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the 2021 final HRA levy.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimat ed
market value allowable for HRA purposes of $1,437,180.
Summary: The preliminary levy was approved on September 21 and no changes are being
recommended for the final approval.
The HRA levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001
which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The city council elected at that time
to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. By
law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Give n the
council’s d esire to f acilitate affordable h ousing, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the
maximum allow ed by law for the 2021 budget year.
The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the city. Therefore,
staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2021 to be $1,437,180 based on valuation data
from Hennepin County which is an increase of $104,202 from 2020.
The EDA is allow ed to auth orize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the city
council. Council action is required before certification.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed levy is $1,437,180 for taxes payable 2021.
The bulk of these dollars will be place d in the affordable housing trust fund.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: EDA resolutio n
2021 final HRA levy and budget
Prepared by: M elanie S chmitt , chi ef f inancial officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom, city manager
Economic development authority meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: 2021 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
EDA Resolution No. 20-____
Authorizing the final levy of
a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
subdivision 6 and approval of a final budget for fiscal year 2021
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the city council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy and
collect a special benefit levy of up to 0.0185 percent of estimated market value in the city upon
all taxable real property within the city; and
Whereas, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to 0.0185
percent of estimated market value in the city for taxes payable in 2021; and
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to
adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by
December 28; and
Whereas, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget
for its operations for the fiscal year 2021 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in
2021 shall be based on this budget and the long range financial management plan, subject to
any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special
benefit levy.
Now therefore be it resolved, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St.
Louis Park Economic Development Authority:
1.The proposed budget of $1,437,180 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year
2021, as presented for consideration by the city council, is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax
levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
2.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed
budget with the city in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6.
3.The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to 0.0185 percent of
estimated market value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be
Economic development authority meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: 2021 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
$7,768,560,500, with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2021, subject to final
approval by the Authority before certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
4.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the city council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2021 and
to take such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final
budget and levy to be sent to the county auditor on or before five working days after
December 21, 2020.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Rachel Harris, president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Economic development authority meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: 2021 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption
2020 Budget 2021 Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy 1,332,978 1,437,180
Interest Income - -
Total Revenue 1,332,978 1,437,180
Expenditues:
Services and Other Charges 15,000 15,000
Transfer out (Housing Rehab)272,248 299,944
Transfer out (Housing Trust Fund)1,045,730 1,122,236
Total Expenditures 1,332,978 1,437,180
Net Change - -
HRA Levy
2021 Final Budget
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Retirement recognition for Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Recommended action: The mayor is asked to read the resolution and present plaque virtually
to Jon for his over 29 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20
years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council.
Lt. Parker will be in attendance virtually for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting.
The mayor is asked to read the resolution for Jon in recognition of his over 29 years of service
to the city.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Retirement recognition for Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Resolution No. 20-____
Resolution of the
City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to
Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Whereas, Jon Parker began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 29 years
ago on May 20, 1991; and
Whereas, Jon served as the department’s first Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
officer which established a long-lasting partnership with the public and private elementary
schools in St. Louis Park ; and
Whereas, Jon served as a community outreach officer assigned to the Meadowbrook
Collaborative and in 2005 was awarded the city’s human rights award for his work with the
residents of Meadowbrook Manor; and
Whereas, Jon was promoted to sergeant in 2003 and lieutenant in 2017 where he
supervised and led the patrol and support services divisions; and
Whereas, Jon served as a special weapons and tactics operator for 16 years, two of those
years as the team leader, and also served as either a field training officer or supervised the field
training officers for 17 years; and
Whereas, Jon was instrumental in leading the department’s transition from traditional
policing to the department’s current community oriented policing model, and has received
numerous letters of appreciation from the public, letters of recognition and commendations
including the Award of Valor for Exemplary Service;
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Jon Parker for his great
contributions and over 29 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him
the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Presentation: 2b
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of donations
Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda:
From Donation For
Max and Lillian
Fallek $2,200 A memorial bench to be installed at Westwood Hills Nature
Center honoring Max and Lillian Fallek and family
Jeffrey Raison and
Marilyn Reiter $2,200 A memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center
honoring nature
Sheri Salloway
Yarosh $2,200 A memorial bench in Wolfe Park honoring Polly and Louis
Salloway , and Adam Hauf
Leslie Marcus $100 Park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills
Nature Center
Karen Campbell $20 Park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills
Nature Center
Adrienne Berman $20 Park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills
Nature Center
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: Retirement recognition for Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution to recognize Jon Parker for his 29 years of
service .
Policy consideration: None at this time .
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20
years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council. Jon will be in attendance virtually for a presentation of his resolution .
This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Jon for his years of service.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable .
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Retirement recognition for Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Resolution No. 20-___
Resolution of the
City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
recognizing the contributions and expressing appreciation to
Police Lieutenant Jon Parker
Whereas, Jon Parker began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 29 years
ago on May 20, 1991; and
Whereas, Jon served as the department’s first Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
officer which established a long-lasting partnership with the public and private elementary
schools in St. Louis Park ; and
Whereas, Jon served as a community outreach officer assigned to the Meadowbrook
Collaborative and in 2005 was awarded the city’s human rights award for his work with the
residents of Meadowbrook Manor; and
Whereas, Jon was promoted to sergeant in 2003 and lieutenant in 2017 where he
supervised and led the patrol and support services divisions; and
Whereas, Jon served as a special weapons and tactics operator for 16 years, two of those
years as the team leader, and also served as either a field training officer or supervised the field
training officers for 17 years; and
Whereas, Jon was instrumental in leading the department’s transition from traditional
policing to the department’s current community oriented policing model, and has received
numerous letters of appreciation from the public, letters of recognition and commendations
including the Award of Valor for Exemplary Service;
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Jon Parker for his great
contributions and over 29 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him
the best in his retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Solar Sundown program authorization
Recommended action: Motion to authorize the Solar Sundown pilot cost sharing program for
2021.
Policy consideration: Is the city council supportive of the Solar Sundown pilot program for
2021?
Summary: At the Dec. 14, 2020 city council study session, staff provided a written report
proposing a new pilot program for 2021 called “Solar Sundown” (Dec. 14, 2020 report). The
program is designed to double the amount of rooftop solar (from 1 megawatt to 2 megawatts)
within the city by year-end and bring St. Louis Park closer to meeting its Climate Action Plan
midterm goal of 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Solar Sundown would offer to share costs with property owners , covering the difference
between the 2020 federal Investment Tax Credit (26%) and the 2021 federal Investment Tax
Credit (22%) for installing rooftop solar, with an additional two percent offered to properties
within the city’s Environmental Justice Area of Concern. With the residential federal Investment
Tax Credit ending on December 31, 2021 and the commercial credit dropping to 10%, piloting a
new tool that leverages outside funds can help the city reach its climate goals.
The goal of generating an additional 1 megawatt of solar would offset approximately 3,000,000
kWh of electricity per year, the equivalent of saving 1,072 metric tons of CO2e (using Xcel’s
current carbon emissions intensity rate).
Financial or budget considerations: It’s estimated the Solar Sundown program would result in
an expenditure of approximately $120,000 in 2021 depending on community participation; the
total expenditure will use a portion of the dollars allocated in the Development Fund in 2021
for sustainability programs.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, building and energy director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Final payment resolution – Street Maintenance (Area 4) – Project No. 4020-1200
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $11,036.67 for the street maintenance project (Area 4) with GMH
Asphalt Corporation – city contract No. 51-20.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: On April 20, 2020, the city council awarded a contract for the 2020 street
maintenance project in pavement area 4. Th is project was advertised, bid and awarded to GMH
Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $412,947.10. The project consisted of edge milling the
existing pavement and overlaying a thin layer of bituminous in pavement management area 4.
This was the city’s first year of maintenance projects using this technique, which replaced
sealcoating as a method of extending the life of a street.
The contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed according to approved
plans and specifications. The final contract cost of $446,528.52 is $31,898.42 (8.1%) more than
the contract as awarded. This is the result of actual quantities being higher than estimated for
pavement and concrete curb replacement. In addition, there was one contract change order
executed to reconstruct a broken gate valve on one of the street segments.
Financial or budget considerations: The final contract cost of the work performed by the
contractor under contract No. 51-20 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract price $ 412,947.10
Change order 1 $ 1,683.00
Overruns $ 31,898.42
Contract amount $ 446,528.52
Previous payments $ 435,491.85
Balance due $ 11,036.67
This project was included in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP). The work was paid for
using franchise fees.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, senior engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Final payment resolution – Street Maintenance (Area 4) – Project No. 4020-1200
Resolution No. 20-____
Resolution authorizing final payment and accepting work
for the S treet maintenance (Area 4) project
C ity project No. 4020-1200
Contract No. 51-20
Now therefore 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 20, 2020, GMH Asphalt
Corporation, has satisfactorily completed the street maintenance project (area 4), as per
contract No. 51-20.
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 $446,528.52.
4.The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the
contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Accept monetary donations to the Operations and Recreation Department
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation
from Max and Lillian Fallek for the purchase of a memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature
Center honoring Max and Lillian Fallek and family , a $2,200 donation from Jeffrey Raison and
Marilyn Reiter for the purchase of a memorial bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring
nature, a $2,200 donation from Sheri Salloway Yarosh for the purchase of a memorial bench in
Wolfe Park honoring Polly and Louis Salloway and Adam Hauf, and a $100 donation from Leslie
Marcus , a $20 donation from Karen Campbell and a $20 donation from Adrienne Berman for
park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept these gift s with restrictions on their
use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Max and Lillian Fallek graciously donated $2,200 to Westwood Hills Nature Center with the
restriction it be used for an honorary bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Max and
Lillian Fallek and family . Jeffrey Raison and Marilyn Reiter graciously donated $2,200 to
Westwood Hills Nature Center with the restriction it be used for an honorary bench at
Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring nature . Sheri Salloway Yarosh graciously donated
$2,200 with a restriction it be used for an honorary bench in Wolfe Park donated in memory of
Polly and Louise Salloway and Adam Hauf. Leslie Marcus graciously donated $100, Karen
Campbell graciously donated $20 and Adrienne Berman graciously donated $20 with the
restriction it be used for park enhancements or program needs at Westwood Hills Nature
Center
Financial or budget considerations: Th ese donations will be used for honorary benches and
park enhancements or program needs.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Carrie Mandler, secretary program aide
Stacy M. Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center manager
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Accept monetary donations to the Operations and Recreation Department
Resolution No. 20-____
Resolution approving acceptance of donation s totaling $6,740 for the purchases
of memorial benches and park enhancements in various parks
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, Max and Lillian Fallek donated $2,200, Jeffrey Raison and Marilyn Reiter
donated $2,200, Sheri Salloway Yarosh donated $2,200, Leslie Marcus donated $100, Karen
Campbell donated $20 and Adriene Berman donated $20.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that these
gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Max and Lillian Fallek and Jeffrey Raison and Marilyn
Reiter with the understanding that they must be used for memorial benches in Westwood Hills
Nature Center; Sheri Salloway Yarosh with the understanding it must be used for a memorial
bench in Wolfe Park; Leslie Marcus , Karen Campbell and Adrienne Berman, with the
understanding that they must be used for park enhancements or program needs at Westwood
Hills Nature Center.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Dec. 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 1815 Melrose Avenue South
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 1815 Melrose Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0039.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Kevin and Donna Schmidt, owners of the single -family residence at 1815 Melrose
Avenue South, have requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment
policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the
sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work,
this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned
the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total
eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $5,875.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Emily Carr, assessing technician
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 1815 Melrose Avenue South
Resolution No. 20-____
Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 1815 Melrose Avenue South , St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 01-117-22-44-0039
Whereas, the property owners at 1815 Melrose Avenue South, have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 1815 Melrose Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1. The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of
Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $5,875.
4. The property owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The property owners have agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 3.50%.
6. The property owners have executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4f
Executive summary
Title: Appointment of council rep and alternate to the SWLRT Community Works Steering
Committee
Recommended action: Motion to appoint Council Member Lynette Dumalag as representative,
and Council Member Margaret Rog as alternate to the SWLRT Community Works Steering
Committee .
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to appoint a representative and an alternate to
the SWLRT Community Works Steering Committee?
Summary: SWLRT has been a Hennepin County Community Works project since 2010 when
planning for SWLRT began in earnest. The intent of the Community Works program is to ensure
that major transportation improvements are not built in isolation, rather are integrated into
and enhance the surrounding community. Hennepin County has several Community Works
projects in addition to SWLRT for example for the Midtown Greenway, Lowry Avenue, and
Hiawatha-Minnehaha.
Attached is the SWLRT Community Works charter that it explains its purpose. Additional
information can be found on the Southwest LRT Community Works website .
In addition to the Steering Committee , there is a companion staff group, the Technical
Implementation Committee (TIC). Over the past several years, the Steering Committee and the
TIC have accomplished much towards the goal of integrating transit into the communities ,
which has resulted in greater continuity among the communities along the line. The work done
by the Committee and the TIC has also been immensely helpful in planning for and anticipating
changes in the LRT corridor and station areas related to transit-oriented development, including
utility, street, sidewalk and bikeway improvements, as well as analysis of and strategies for
housing and employment.
Recently, the Steering Committee has been meeting every other month and the staff group has
been meeting monthly. Previously, City Council Member Anne Mavity represented the city on
the Steering Committee; however, due to her resignation there is a vacancy.
Financial or budget considerations: None
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: SWLRT Community Works Steering Committee Charter
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, principal planner
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee Charter
Adopted by the Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee on October 6, 2010 –
revisions approved July 15, 2020
PURPOSE
1. The Steering Committee will provide overall guidance and direction for the Southwest LRT
Community Works Project, the goal of which is to encourage collaboration between cities and
other project partners, and support infrastructure, development, and public space
improvements in concert with LRT design and construction. This work will help to maximize public
benefits, improve economic equity, provide affordable housing opportunities and improved
access to jobs, protect the natural environment, and strengthen communities along the
Southwest LRT line.
2. The Steering Committee will provide a forum for its members to (a) engage with the LRT
project implementation process, and associated opportunities for land use and economic
development adjacent to the LRT line; (b) support development plans and investments of its
members to take maximum advantage of development opportunities along the SW LRT line;
and (c) leverage funds to solicit private sector investment, public funding and other grant
dollars.
3. The Steering Committee will liaison with Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee to
ensure policy coordination and the strong integration of land use/economic
development/housing and LRT engineering.
ACTIVITIES
The Steering Committee will establish a work plan and activities to support implementation of
projects consistent with the corridor vision, investment strategy and municipal plans. This plan will
include the following elements:
Establish a corridor development vision for the Southwest LRT corridor
Maintain and implement a Strategic Investment Framework
Identify public, private and other resources to support implementation of the Investment
Framework and other projects that reflect work plan activities
Facilitate and support development across jurisdictions
Enhance local efforts for broad-based, diverse community engagement
Coordinate corridor-wide communications and support corridor marketing
COMPOSITION
The membership of the Steering Committee shall consist of the following:
•Two (2) Hennepin County Commissioners
•One (1) Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Commissioner
•One (1) City of Minneapolis Mayor/Councilmember
•One (1) City of St. Louis Park Mayor/Councilmember
•One (1) City of Edina Mayor/Councilmember
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Appointment of council rep and alternate to the SWLRT Community Works Steering Committee Page 2
•One (1) City of Hopkins Mayor/Councilmember
•One (1) City of Minnetonka Mayor/Councilmember
•One (1) City of Eden Prairie Mayor/Councilmember
•One (1) Metropolitan Council Chair/Councilmember
•One (1) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Councilmember
•One (1) Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board member
•One (1) SouthWest Transit representative
•One (1) Urban Land Institute – Minnesota representative (ex-officio)
•One (1) Southwest Community Advisory Committee member (ex-officio)
•One (1) Southwest Business Advisory Committee member (ex-officio)
The Steering Committee may expand its membership over time to include additional public,
business or other community representatives that the Steering Committee determines to be
appropriate to advance the goals of the SW LRT Community Works Project. New members shall
be added according to the Membership Policy and Nomination Process adopted by the
Steering Committee (attached).
ORGANIZATION
•The steering committee will select a chair and vice-chair.
•The Steering Committee will determine if subcommittees, project committees and/or
advisory committees should be established and, if so, the role, composition, reporting
relationship and method of selection for such committees.
•The Steering Committee may determine if the SW LRT Community Works Project should be
formalized via some form of inter-organizational partnership agreement such as a joint
powers agreement, an inter-jurisdictional agreement (as used for other Hennepin County
community works projects) or a memorandum of understanding.
•In addition to determining if a formal agreement is required, the Steering Committee may
establish other requirements of membership including financial contributions.
STAFFING AND BUDGET
•The Steering Committee will determine the number and types of professional staff needed to
support its goals and work program and how to secure these services. Op tions include
dedication of staff from one or more of the participating organizations contracting for
professional services from a consulting organization, or some combination of the two.
•The Steering Committee may also establish an expenditure budget and revenue sources for
2011 and annually thereafter.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Appointment of council rep and alternate to the SWLRT Community Works Steering Committee Page 3
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4g
Executive summary
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution providing preliminary approval for the
issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the CB SLP Housing (CommonBond)
project.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to consider the issuance of multifamily revenue
bonds to finance a portion of CB SLP Housing Limited Partnership affordable housing project in
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $21,000,000?
Summary: CB SLP Housing (CommonBond) has requested multifamily housing revenue bonds to
finance a portion of its affordable housing project proposed to be constructed on the site of the
former Prince of Peace church at the southwest corner of Highwy 7 and Texas Avenue. The
bonds would help finance construction of a 120-unit, 100% affordable multifamily rental housing
facility located at 8115 State Highway No. 7 in the city for occupancy by individuals, families, and
seniors of low- and moderate-income. The building will also include commercial space for an
early childhood center and connected outdoor play area. The early childhood center is expected
to utilize an affordable model that serves approximately 60 children and reserves spots for
residents of the building and low-income households needing subsidy or scholarships. The
commercial portion of the building will not be financed with tax -exempt bonds.
The multifamily housing revenue bonds would be issued in a maximum amount not to exceed
$21,000,000. This is the first step of the process for CB SLP Housing to secure an allocation of
Housing bonds from Minnesota Mangement and Budget (MMB). If the council approves to serve
as the conduit for these bonds, CB SLP Housing will submit an application to MMB by the
January 4th deadline. If MMB awards housing bonds to CB SLP Housing’s project, the City Council
will hold a public hearing in April or May , and consider a resolution giving final approval to the
bonds and related documents.
Financial or budget considerations: Issuance of these bonds would not impact the city’s debt
capacity, would not constitute a general or moral obligation of the city, and would not be
secured by the taxing powers of the city or any assets or property of the city. In addition, if the
financing goes forward, CB SLP Housing will pay an administration fee in the amount of 1/8th of
1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal of the bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt , chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Resolution No. 20-____
Resolution providing preliminary approval to the issuance of
multifamily housing revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes,
chapters 462C and 474A, as amended, and taking other actions in
connection therewith
Be it resolved by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
S ection 1. Recitals .
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Housing Act”),
the Cit y is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Housing Act by providing
for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing
developments.
1.02. CB SLP Housing Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, or an
affiliate (the “Borrower”), has proposed to acqu ire, construct, and equip an approximately 120-
unit multifamily rental housing facility and facilities functionally related and subordinate
thereto located at 8115 State Highway No. 7 in the City (the “Project”) for occupancy by
individuals, families , and seniors of low and moderate income . The building will also include
commercial space for an early childhood center and connected outdoor play area. The early
childhood center is expected to utilize an affordable model that serves approximately 60
children and reserves spots for residents of the building and low-income households needing
subsidy or scholarships. The commercial portion of the building will not be financed with
tax -exempt bonds.
1.03. The Borrower is requesting that the City issue one or more series of tax-exempt
or taxable conduit revenue obligations (the “Bonds”), in the approximate maximum principal
amount of $21,000,000, in order to finance all or a portion of (i) the costs of the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of the Project; (ii) required reserve funds, if any ; (iii) capitalized
interest during the construction of the Project; and (iv) the costs of issuing the Bonds.
1.04. As a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must prepare and
adopt a housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a
of the Housin g Act (the “Housing Program”). The City Council must also grant prelimin ary
approval of the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the multifamily re ntal housing
development referred to in the Housing Program.
1.05. Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Rev enue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City Council must conduct a public hearing after
providing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City or on the City’s website at
least seven (7) days before the hearing. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing
Act, a public hearing must be held on the Housing Program after one publication of notice in a
newspaper circulating generally in the City at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
1.06. Pursuant to Section 146 of the Co de, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the
bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application fo r such an allocation must be
made pursuant to the requireme nts of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, a s amended (the
“Allocation Act”). The City Council must grant preliminary approval to the issuance of the
Bonds to finance the Project and authorize the submission of an application to the office of
Minnesota Management and Budget for an allocation of bonding authority with respect to the
Bonds to finance the Project.
Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrow er to
the City to date, the City Council hereby makes the following preliminary findings,
determinations, and declarations:
(a) The Bonds will finance a multifamily housing development designed and
intended to be used for rental occupancy.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the
procee ds thereof, along with other available funds, will be used to finance all or a
portion of the costs of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project,
capitalized interest during the construction of the Project, required reserve funds (if
any), and costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City will enter into a loan agreement (or
other re venue agreement) with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the
Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds when
due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insurin g the Project,
including taxe s the reon.
(c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, the City’s purpose
is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare of the City and its
residents by retaining and improving multifamily housing developments and otherwise
furthering the purposes and policies of the Housing Act.
(d) The Bonds will be special, limited o bligations of the City payable solely
from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, will not be a general or moral
obligation of the City, and will not be secured by or payable from revenues derived from
any exercise of the taxing powers of the City.
Section 3. Submission of an Application for an Allocatio n of Bonding Authority. The
City Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allo cation of bonding
authority with respect to the Bonds in the approximate principal amount of up to $21,000,000
pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Allocation Act in accordance with the
requirements of the Allocation Act. City staff and Kennedy & G raven, Chartered, acting as bond
counsel to the City (“Bond Counsel”), shall take all actions, in cooperation with the Borrower, as
are necessary to submit an application for an allocation of bonding authority to the office of
Minn esota M anagement and Budget.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Section 4. Public Hearing. The City Council shall meet at a date to be determined by
City staff to conduct a public hearing on the Housing Program, the Project, and the issuance of
the Bonds by the City. Notice of such hearing (the “Public N otice”) will be published and/or
posted as required by Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing Act and Se ction 147(f) of
the Code. Bond Counsel is hereby authorized and dire cted to publish the Public Notice, in
substantially the form attache d hereto as EXHIBIT A, in the Sun Sailor, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City . At the public hearing reaso nable opportunity will be provided for
interested individuals to expre ss their views, both orally and in writing, on the Project, the
Housing Program, and the proposed issuance of the Bonds.
Section 5. Housin g Program. Bond Counsel shall prepare and submit to the City a
draft Housing Program to authorize the issuance by the City of the Bonds in a principal amount
of up to $21,000,000 to finance all or portion of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of
the Project by the Borrower. Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to submit, on behalf of
the City, the Housing Program to Metropolitan Council for review and comment pursuant to
Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing Act.
Section 6. Preliminary Ap proval. The City Council here by provides preliminary
approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the estimated principal amount not to exceed
$21,000,000, subject to: (i) a public hearing as required by the Housing Act and Section 147(f)
of the Code; (ii) f inal ap proval following the preparation of bond documents; (iii) receipt of an
allocation of bonding authority from the office of Minnesota Management and Budget; and
(iv ) f inal determination by the City Council that the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bonds are in the best int erests of the City.
Section 7. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code .
7.01. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated regulations
governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion o f which are to be used
to reimburse the City or the Borrower for project expenditures paid prior to the date of
issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Re gulations, Section 1.150-2) (the
“Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official inte nt to re imburse an original
expenditure not later than sixty (60) days after payment of the original expenditure. The
Regulation s also gene rally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation
made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen (18) months after the later of:
(i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three (3) years after the date the expenditure is paid.
The Regulations generally permit reimbu rsement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance
of the Bonds.
7.02. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will b e applied to
expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the
Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds
after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditure s. All reimbursed expenditures
shall be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for
reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures
under the Housing Act.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 5
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Base d on representations by the Borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or
reimbursed from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed
under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.150-
2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within
the meaning of Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a “de minimis”
amount (as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulatio ns), no expenditures with respect to
the Project to be reimbursed with the proceeds of the Bonds have been made by the Borrower
more than sixty (60) days before the date of adoption of this resolution of the City.
7.03. Based on re presentations by the Borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no
funds of the Borrower reserved, allocated on a long term -basis or otherwise set aside (or
reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to
provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Project to be financed from
proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution,
therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the
Borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof.
Section 8. Costs. The Borrower will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay,
or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in
con nection with the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are
issued.
Section 9. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not
con stitute a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issu e the Bonds as re queste d by the
Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and
accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount
referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to is suance thereof determine that it is in
the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than
the amount referred to in Section 6 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable
to reach agree ment as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the
transaction.
Se ction 10. Effective Date . This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and
afte r its passage.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 6
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by City Council
Member ____________________, and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being
taken thereon, the following City Council Members voted in favor thereof:
____________________.
And the following City Council Members voted in opposition: ______________________
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council Dece mber 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 7
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Exhibit A
Noti ce of public hearing
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Notice of public hearing on the approval of a housing program for a multifamily
housing developme nt and the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462C and 474A, as amended
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park , Minnesota
(the “City”) w ill hold a public hearing on Monday, _______________, 2021, at or after 6:30 p.m.
[at City Hall, located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City,] to consider a proposal that the
City approve and authorize the issuance of one or more series of tax -exempt or taxable revenue
obligations (the “Bonds”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462C and 474A , as
amended (the “Act”), for the purposes of providing financing for all or a portion of (i) the costs
of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 120-unit multifamily rental
housing facility and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto located at 8115 State
Highway No. 7 in the City (the “Project”) for occupancy by individuals, families , and seniors of
low and moderate income ; (ii) any required reserve funds; (iii) capitalized interest during the
construction of the Project; and (iv) costs of issuing the Bonds. CB SLP Housing Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, or an affiliate (colle ctively, the “Borrower”), will
own the Project. The aggregate principal amount of the proposed Bonds is estimated not to
exceed $21,000,000.
Following t he public hearing, the Cit y Council will consider a resolution approving a
housing program prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act and granting
approval to the issuance of the Bonds.
The Bonds if and when issued will b e special, limited o bligations of the City, and the
Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely f rom the revenues and assets pledged to the
payment thereof. No holder of any Bond will have the right to compel any exercise of the
taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or th e interest thereon, nor to enforce payment
against any property of the City except money payable by the Borrower to the City and pledge d
to the payment of the Bonds. Before issuing the Bonds, the City will enter into an agreement
with the Borrower, whereby the Borrower will be obligated to make payments at least
sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due.
At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all p ersons
who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal.
In addition, interested persons may direct any questions or file written comments respecting
the proposal with the City Manager, at or prior to said public hearin g.
PLEASE NOTE, due to COVID-19, the public hearing may be conducted via telephone or
other electronic means as allowed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.021. Please refer to
the City’s website at https://www.stlouispark.org/ or call City Hall at 952-924-2500 to learn
how to attend the public hearing via telephone or electronically.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Page 8
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Dated: [Date of Publication ]
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
/s/ Melissa Kennedy
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4h
Executive summary
Title: Designate polling places for the 2021 municipal and school district election cycle
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution designating polling places for the 2021
election cycle.
Policy consideration: Do the proposed polling places meet all sta tutory and federal requirements
for use in the 2021 election cycle?
Summary: In 2017, the state legislature amended State Statute 204B.16, Subd. 1 to require the
governing body of each municipality to designate by resolution a polling place for each election
precinct by December 31 of each year. The polling places designated in this resolution will be
used for the 2021 election cycle, unless a change is made because of an emergency or be cause
a polling place has become unavailable. In 2021 a ll polling places and precincts are scheduled to
be reviewed as a part of the statewide redistricting process. Elections staff is planning an
extensive redistricting effort that will include a large ou treach and education component. More
details will be released about this process in 2021 after staff knows more from the federal,
state, and county levels about the results of the 2020 census and any required changes to
legislative boundaries.
State law requires that polling places be located within one (1) mile of a precinct boundary, are
fully accessible, large enough to accommodate election activities, free of other non-election
activities, smoking free, liquor free and not adjacent to a liquor service area. When evaluating
facilities staff considers many factors including: availability, number of voters to be served at
the facility, accessibility and ADA standards, parking, traffic, and voter convenience.
Financial or budget considerations: Fees associated with use of facilities are included in the
2021 budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Designate polling places for the 2021 municipal and school district election cycle
Resolution No. 20 -____
Resolution designating polling places
for the 2021 municipal and school board election cycle
Whereas, the municipal and ISD 283 school board general election will be held on
November 2, 2021;
Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the St. Louis Park City Council that the 2021
municipal and ISD 283 school board general election, as well as any required special elections,
will take place at the following precinct polling locations:
Ward 1 Precinct 1 – Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St. W.
Ward 1 Precinct 2 – Wat Thai Buddhist Center, 2544 Highway 100 South
Ward 1 Precinct 3 – St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
Ward 1 Precinct 4 – Central Community Center, 6300 Walker St.
Ward 2 Precinct 5 – Union Congregational Church, 3700 Alabama Ave. S.
Ward 2 Precinct 6 – St. Louis Park Recreation Center, 3700 Monterey Dr.
Ward 2 Precinct 7 – Vista Lutheran Church, 4003 Wooddale Ave. S.
Ward 2 Precinct 8 – Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 3801 Wooddale Ave S
Ward 3 Precinct 9 – St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center, 7305 Oxford St.
Ward 3 Precinct 10 – Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd.
Ward 3 Precinct 11 – St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St. W.
Ward 3 Precinct 12 – Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St. W.
Ward 4 Precinct 13 – Westwood Lutheran Church, 9001 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 14 – Park Harbor Church, 1615 Texas Ave. S.
Ward 4 Precinct 15 – Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 16 – St. Louis Park Middle School, 2025 Texas Ave. S.
Be it further resolved, the city clerk is authorized to make any changes as deemed
necessary in the case of an emergency or if a polling place has become unavailable.
Reviewed for administration Adopted by the city council December 21, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 20 20
Consent agenda item: 4 i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Nov. 18 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT: Imran Dagane
STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of October 21 and Nov ember 4, 2020
Commissioner Weber made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Beneke
seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Commissioner Dagane absent).
3. Public Hearings
A. Pennsylvania Park Apartments conditional use permit (CUP)
Applicant: Patrick Juetten, on behalf of Waypoint Development
Case Nos: 20-24-CUP
Ms. Kramer, associate planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Weber asked if the decision to separate the conditional use permit and
the painted brick variance because staff feels the issue will be resolved or does it relate
to the code and that they should be separated.
Ms. Kramer stated staff was not aware of the painted brick before the applicant applied
for a conditional use permit, so they did not have time to allow for the variance. However,
staff is working with the owner on this and the painted brick issue will be resolved before
the project begins.
She added the CUP can be approved separate from a variance and construction would
not begin before that time.
Chair Kraft opened the public hearing.
There were no callers. The applicant’s representative Mr. Jue tten stated the applicant
was not aware of the painting issue until the y applied for the CUP. He stated a variance
will now be applied for with the city as it was difficult to remove the paint off the brick
façade when they performed a test.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4 i) Page 2 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes Nov. 18 , 20 20
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Weber made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eckholm
recommending approval of the CUP as presented.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 (Commissioner Dagane absent).
4. Other Business - none
5. Communications
Mr. Walther, planning and zoning supervisor, noted a study session regarding
miscellaneous zoning code amendments would follow the regular meeting. He stated
the council approved the Walker Lake Historic District and the Nordic Ware special
permit amendment as recommended by the planning commission.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
The study session commenced at 6:16 p.m.
1. Miscellaneous code amendments
Mr. Walther stated the city council recently noted they see many CUP applications related to
import and export of soil. The city council has asked that city staff bring forward an amendment
that would reduce the number of applications that come through, especially when coupled with
other applications. They also suggested staff submit other similar items to council all in one
package.
Mr. Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, explained several items including:
reducing redundancy in the application and fee process, clarifying window transparency and
code compliance in both new and existing buildings, prohibiting sign illumination in residential
areas, adding a land use description of marijuana dispensary, allowing amendments to older
PUD’s that were approved by resolution, adjusting and clarifying what is included in bright
accent color limitations , and allowing restaurants with intoxicating liquor in the C-1
neighborhood commercial district as a CUP.
Commissioner Weber asked about the illuminated signs and how it relates to illuminated flags.
Mr. Walther stated there are federal regulations related to the U.S. flag adding they are not
allowed to be restricted in size and must be lit in some circumstances. He added there are also
some exemptions related to political signs during an election season as well.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4 i) Page 3 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes Nov. 18 , 20 20
Chair Kraft noted the bright accent colors and how that would be changed, adding it seems
subjective and hard to enforce.
Mr. Morrison stated it is somewhat ambiguous and subjective and staff continues to work on
this. He states staff will suggest small incremental changes but also allow more flexibility as
seems to be the will of the commission and council based on discussions during recent
applications
Mr. Walther added there are ways to define specific colors and how bright and intense they are
but it is subjective on what is welcome or not.
Commissioner Weber asked if the painted signs now allowed count toward the 5% or if that
should be clarified also.
Mr. Morrison stated the painted signs are treated as a wall sign and are included in the
calculation of the bright accent colors of the exterior building materials.
Commissioner Weber asked if the concern on bright colors is with residential or commercial
buildings. Mr. Morrison stated it applies to both residential and commercial.
Chair Kraft stated it could go up to 10% and she is not sure about regulating the actual color as
it seems more challenging. Commissioner Weber agreed.
Commissioner Weber stated he is comfortable with all the noted amendments and would
support going forward with them.
Mr. Morrison stated staff will come back with more information at the December meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Consent agenda item: 4j
Executive summary
Title: November 2020 monthly financial report
Recommended action: No action required at this time.
Policy consideration: Monthly financial reporting is part of our financial management policies.
Summary: The monthly financial report provides an overview of general fund revenues and
departmental expenditures comparing them to budget throughout the year.
Financial or budget considerations: At the end of November, general fund expenditures were
at approximately 84.5% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 7% under budget.
License and permit revenues combined are exceeding the annual budget at 110%.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Summary of revenues and departmental expenditures
Pre pared by: Darla Monson, accountant
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4j)
Title: November 2020 monthly financial report
Discussion
Background: This monthly report provides summary information of the overall level of
revenues and departmental expenditures in the general fund compared to the adopted budget
throughout the year.
Present considerations:
General Fund
Under normal circumstances, expenditures would generally be at about 92% of the annual
budget at the end of November. This year general fund expenditures are running about 7%
under budget through November. A primary reason for the low er expenditures can be
attributed to salary savings from positions in the general fund that were put on hold due to
COVID.
The license and permit revenues combined are exceeding the total annual budget at 110%
through November. Net of the refunds that were issued earlier in the year to businesses due to
the COVID-19 closures , business and liquor license revenue is at 83% or $793,000 of the annual
budget. Permit revenue is at 116% or $4,321,000 of the total budget. Larger permits issued in
2020 include Parkway Place Apartments, The Quentin and several school district construction
projects. A portion of the 10 West End permit revenue was deferred last year to 2020 to offset
related expenditures for inspection s.
The second half property tax settlement was received from the county on December 1.
Collections were very strong and did not show a decrease due to COVID. A smaller final
settlement will be received in late January.
COVID related expenditures funded by CARES money will be transferred from the General Fund
in December and moved to a separate fund.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,899 $6,184 $8,981 $11,848 $15,420 $18,566 $21,876 $25,191 $28,127 $31,808 $35,176
Budget $3,475 $6,949 $10,424 $13,898 $17,373 $20,847 $24,322 $27,796 $31,271 $34,745 $38,220 $41,694
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Departmental Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 2020 20202020201820182019201920202020Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget YTD Nov Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes25,705,886$ 26,597,928$ 26,880,004$ 26,952,306$ 28,393,728$ 14,988,095$ 13,405,633$ 52.79% Licenses and Permits3,924,648 4,001,644 4,103,424 5,264,659 4,660,811 5,114,322 (453,511) 109.73% Fines & Forfeits269,200 282,146 279,700 274,340 280,000 115,755 164,245 41.34% Intergovernmental1,864,877 2,006,435 1,760,900 1,761,763 1,760,082 1,661,498 98,584 94.40% Charges for Services2,162,410 2,180,589 2,187,319 2,160,345 2,273,824 1,343,341 930,483 59.08% Rents & Other Miscellaneous1,318,037 1,427,744 1,367,012 1,500,867 1,456,102 1,146,804 309,298 78.76% Transfers In1,929,090 1,929,076 1,999,877 2,012,706 2,038,338 1,817,143 221,195 89.15% Investment Earnings 160,000 251,494 180,000 523,124 210,000 95,487 114,513 45.47% Other Income40,950 35,802 31,300 57,274 621,280 727,854 (106,574) 117.15% Use of Fund Balance523,835 298,156 230,026 - 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues37,898,933$ 38,712,858$ 39,087,692$ 40,737,411$ 41,694,165$ 27,010,299$ 14,683,866$ 64.78%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,341,606$ 1,340,282$ 1,837,620$ 1,673,619$ 1,868,599$ 1,327,931$ 540,668$ 71.07% Finance978,752 964,036 1,034,199 1,078,291 1,124,045 1,040,779 83,266 92.59% Assessing759,865 710,715 772,746 751,737 808,171 713,865 94,306 88.33% Human Resources796,666 735,050 805,620 756,767 823,209 704,802 118,407 85.62% Community Development1,479,911 1,559,721 1,502,521 1,515,672 1,571,894 1,396,695 175,199 88.85% Facilities Maintenance1,162,342 1,223,109 1,170,211 1,209,474 1,265,337 1,243,432 21,905 98.27% Information Resources1,589,432 1,526,028 1,674,937 1,474,604 1,709,255 1,509,581 199,674 88.32% Communications & Marketing755,940 829,732 805,674 786,448 828,004 664,089 163,915 80.20% Community Outreach27,637 12,085 0.00%Total General Government8,892,151$ 8,900,758$ 9,603,528$ 9,246,612$ 9,998,514$ 8,601,173$ 1,397,341$ 86.02% Public Safety: Police9,930,681$ 9,877,014$ 10,335,497$ 10,452,038$ 10,853,821$ 9,642,227$ 1,211,594$ 88.84% Fire Protection4,657,973 4,630,520 4,813,078 4,754,524 5,040,703 4,370,952 669,751 86.71% Building 2,544,762 2,295,910 2,555,335 2,430,473 2,696,585 2,072,025 624,560 76.84%Total Public Safety17,133,416$ 16,803,444$ 17,703,910$ 17,637,035$ 18,591,109$ 16,085,204$ 2,505,905$ 86.52% Operations: Public Works Administration230,753$ 208,050$ 290,753$ 214,436$ 273,318$ 199,149$ 74,169$ 72.86% Public Works Operations3,091,857 2,998,935 3,111,481 3,099,493 3,331,966 2,700,037 631,929 81.03% Vehicle Maintenance1,253,367 1,210,279 1,242,236 1,268,700 1,278,827 1,066,128 212,699 83.37% Engineering525,834 552,432 570,377 609,567 551,285 468,466 82,819 84.98%Total Operations5,101,811$ 4,969,696$ 5,214,847$ 5,192,196$ 5,435,396$ 4,433,781$ 1,001,615$ 81.57% Parks and Recreation: Organized Recreation1,582,490 1,499,780 1,579,569 1,498,462 1,637,002 1,293,311 343,691 79.00% Recreation Center1,860,755 2,004,937 1,949,657 2,041,386 2,061,394 1,727,161 334,233 83.79% Park Maintenance1,830,530 1,866,744 1,833,297 1,820,455 1,906,363 1,633,642 272,721 85.69% Westwood Nature Center622,346 599,704 643,750 612,266 748,683 544,647 204,036 72.75% Natural Resources559,662 376,359 484,784 429,409 504,143 386,321 117,822 76.63%Total Parks and Recreation6,455,783$ 6,347,524$ 6,491,057$ 6,401,977$ 6,857,585$ 5,585,082$ 1,272,503$ 81.44% Other Depts and Non-Departmental: Racial Equity and Inclusion -$ -$ -$ 4,592$ 314,077$ 246,987$ 67,090$ 78.64% Sustainability26,283 497,484 224,066 273,418 45.04% Transfers Out1,040,000 300,000 0.00% Contingency and Other315,772 186,966 74,350 121,245 0.00%Total Other Depts and Non-Departmental315,772$ 1,226,966$ 74,350$ 452,119$ 811,561$ 471,052$ 340,509$ 58.04%Total General Fund Expenditures37,898,933$ 38,248,388$ 39,087,692$ 38,929,940$ 41,694,165$ 35,176,292$ 6,517,873$ 84.37%Page 3City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 4j) Title: November 2020 monthly financial report
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Action agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Reappointment of representative to Fire Civil Service C ommission
Recommended action: Motion to reappoint William MacMillan to the Fire Civil Service
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2023.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: The Fire Civil Service Commission is regulated by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 420.
Section 420.03 states that “all vacancies in the commission shall be filled by appointment by the
council within 30 days after the vacancy occurs”. Commissioner MacMillan’s has been on the
Fire Civil Service Commission for 22 years (since 1998) and his current term expires on
December 31, 2020. He has communicated with staff that he wishes to be reappointed to a
new term on the Fire Civil Service Commission.
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: None
Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement
plan (CIP)
Recommended action:
•Motio n to adopt Resolution approving the 2021 budgets and authorizing the 2021 final
property tax levy.
•Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the 2021 final HRA levy.
•Motion to adopt Resolution approving the 2021-2030 capital improvement plan.
Policy consideration:
•Is the city council in support of setting the 2021 final property tax levy at $36,335,325,
which is a 4.50% increase over the 2020 final property tax levy?
•Is the city council in support of setting the maximum HRA levy allowed by state statute at
$1,437,180?
•Is the city council in support of setting the 2021 budgets for general, enterprise, internal
service, special revenue, and select capital project funds?
•Is the city council in support of setting the 2021-2030 capital improvement plan which is
updated on an annual basis?
Summary: Included is information pertaining to the adoption of the 2021 property tax levy,
budgets, HRA levy, and 2021-2030 CIP. Information is also provided on the tax impacts to a
residential homestead property and a brief discussion on 2021 utility rates that were previously
reviewed and approved.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed tax levies, budgets, and utility rates will help
support city services, capital improvements, and debt service obligations for fiscal year 2021.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of strategic priorities are supported by the city’s budget.
•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 continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-
oriented development.
•St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way
around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolutions
2021-2030 CIP project by funding source
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Discussion
Background: The 2021 budget was developed with the council’s strategic priorities, Vision 3.0,
and the comprehensive plan in mind. The budget addresses the need to maintain our
infrastructure (city roads, parks, building etc.), technology, debt service, and responsive and
high -quality service to the residents and businesses, which includes personnel costs for police,
fire and other staff.
• On May 26, 2020 staff and council met to discuss the 2020 budget process and the
“systems thinking” approach when considering operations, programs, policies and
opportunities for St. Louis Park.
• On June 22, 2020 staff and council met to start discussing budget assumptions. Debt,
CIP, and Long-Range Financial Management Plan were also discussed in relation to the
budget.
• At the Aug. 10, 2020 and Sept. 14, 2020 study sessions, the council reviewed information
from the staff report (including staff changes and significant revenue/expenditure
adjustments) and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2021 preliminary property tax
levy change of 6.11% when compared to the 2020 final property tax levy. In addition, the
council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2021 preliminary HRA levy at the
0.0185%, which is the maximum allowed by state statute.
• On Aug. 24, 2020 staff and council met to review the public safety budgets and the Fire
chief provided information on the proposed 2021 budget and operation changes.
• On Sept. 21, 2020, the EDA and council adopted the 2021 preliminary HRA levy of
$1,437,184. Also, the council adopted the 2021 preliminary property tax levy of
$36,895,000, which is approximately 6.11% change over the 2020 final property tax
levy.
• On Oct. 12, 2020, the council reviewed the 2021-2030 capital improvement p lan (CIP),
long range financial management plan, and debt modeling assumptions.
• On Nov 23, 2020, staff and council reviewed a number of items and discussed the Long
Range Financial Plan to reduce the final levy to 4.50%.
Budget communication: We continue to strive for the most transparent budget process
possible. Information is provided through the webpage and having an active e -mail address for
any que stions that arise. We received several e-mail questions this year, and some comments
as well. The comments from the budget e-mail address are attached for your review. This is in
addition, to other forms of communication such as the information on the property tax process
and budget in the park perspective, and a flyer with budget information on proposed 2021 levy
and tax impact sent out with the truth in taxation notices in November.
Summary: 2021 preliminary adopted levy and updated 2021 levy.
1. The 2021 preliminary property tax levy was adopted on September 16 at $36,895,000,
which is approximately 6.11% more than the 2020 final Levy.
2. The updated property tax levy being considered on December 21 at $36,335,325, which
is approximately 4.50% more than the 2020 final levy.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
The proposed breakdown of the 4.50% proposed 2021 property tax levy by fund
2021 Budgets: The council will consider a resolution for adoption that includes summary
budget data for the General, Enterprise, Internal Services, Special Revenue, and select Capital
Project Funds. These funds are consistent with our long-range financial management plan that
we reviewed earlier and work in conjunction with the CIP.
HRA Levy: The HRA levy is recommended to be set at the maximum allowed of 0.0185% of
estimated market value, which is consistent with previous years. The amount for 2021 is
estimated at $1,437,180. The HRA levy is being directed to fund direct housing related salaries
to run the housing programs and a transfer to the newly created housing trust fund.
2021-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): The CIP is one of the long -range planning tools that
the city utilizes. The CIP is a ten -year plan, but is updated annually as priorities , projects, and
funding sources change. The CIP is only an estimate of future projects, as only the current year
(2021) projects are authorized during the next year. Years 2022-2030 are for planning
purposes. Any project in the CIP estimated to cost more than $175,000 will be formally bid and
brought back for acceptance by the City Council.
The City Council has reviewed the 10-year CIP during work sessions throughout the 2021
budget process. We revised the long-range plan on utility and capital project funds, which tie
into the long-range financial management plan and our debt modeling. Further discussions will
take place with council on the capital plan assumptions, particularly in regards to the Connect
the Park initiative.
The 2021-2030 CIP summary is as follows:
• $257 million in planned investment over the next ten years.
• $217 million of these costs are being paid from sources or revenue streams the City has
direct control of such as franchise fees, tax levy dollars, utility rates, future bonding, etc.
• $40 million of this is planned as non-city resources such as federal and state
governmental, including Municipal Sate Aid (MSA).
Utility Funds: As previously reviewed and approved, the approximate cumulative effect on a
typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of
$14.43/quarter, or approximately $4.81 per month. The calculation is based on a household
using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), a 20-unit winter sewer average and 60-
gallon solid waste service. Solid waste rates continue to support pay as you throw and
encourages recycling and organics use. Water and sewer rates are structured to encourage
water conservation.
2020 $ change 2021 % Change
Tax Capacity Based Levy Final Levy 2020 to 2021 Proposed 2020 to 2021
General Fund 28,393,728$ 1,208,083$ 29,601,811$ 4.25%
Park Improvement 860,000 - 860,000 0.00%
Capital Replacement 1,567,700 (255,000) 1,312,700 -16.27%
Debt Service-current 3,799,093 611,721 4,410,814 16.10%
Employee Benefit Fund 150,000 - 150,000 0.00%
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total 34,770,521$ 1,564,804$ 36,335,325$ 4.50%
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Estimated city levy impact for 2021 – example on median value home: Based on a 6.11% levy
increase (preliminary levy) on a median value residential homestead property with a value that
increased from $297,800 to $306,436, the city’s portion of the property taxes were estimated
to increase by about $36.97 in 2021, or $3.08 per month.
Based on the 4.50% levy increase on a median value residential homestead property that
increased in value from $297,800 to $306,436, the city’s portion of the property taxes are
estimated to increase by about $16.00 in 2021, or $1.33 per month.
In combination, and based on the assumptions noted above, the total increase is estimated to
be approximately $74/yr.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 20-____
Resolution adopting the 2021 general fund budget, other 2021 budgets and
authorizing the 2021 final property tax levy
Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
Whereas, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy
and a budget in December of each year; and
Whereas, the City Council has received the budget information;
Now therefore, be it resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the
2021 General Fund Budget and 2021 Budgets are adopted as presented; and
2020 2021
Adopted Proposed $%
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 28,393,728$ 29,601,811$ 1,208,083$ 4%
Licenses and Permits 4,660,811 4,621,829 (38,982) -1%
Fines & Forfeits 280,000 231,000 (49,000) -18%
Intergovernmental 1,760,082 1,661,549 (98,533) -6%
Charges for Services 2,273,824 2,013,834 (259,990) -11%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,456,102 1,499,091 42,989 3%
Transfers In 2,038,338 2,055,017 16,679 1%
Investment Earnings 210,000 200,000 (10,000) -5%
Other Income 621,280 618,300 (2,980) 0%
Total General Fund Revenues 41,694,165$ 42,502,431$ 808,266$ 1.9%
Summary of Budgeted Revenues
Difference
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government 10,735,075$ 10,961,627$ 226,552$ 2.11%
Public Safety 18,591,109 18,878,467 287,358 1.55%
Operations & Recreation 12,292,981 12,233,492 (59,489) -0.48%
Non-Departmental 75,000 428,845 353,845 472%
Total General Fund Expenditures 41,694,165$ 42,502,431$ 808,266$ 1.9%
Summary of Budgeted Expenditures
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
2020 2021
Adopted Proposed
Special Revenue
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,379,662$ 1,327,694$
Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 1,678,496 1,420,616
CDBG Fund
Total CDBG Revenues 30,000 150,000
Total CDBG Expenditures 30,000 150,000
Cable TV Fund
Total Cable TV Revenues 562,500 559,250
Total Cable TV Expenditures 640,125 572,266
Capital Project
Development Fund
Total Development Fund Revenues 5,195,262 6,317,881
Total Development Fund Expenditures 6,101,033 11,451,400
HRA Levy Fund
Total HRA Levy Revenues 1,332,978 1,437,180
Total HRA Levy Expenditures 1,332,978 1,437,180
Housing Trust Fund
Total Housing Trust Fund Revenues 1,045,730 1,558,361
Total Housing Trust Fund Expenditures - 1,650,000
Enterprise
Water Utility Fund
Total Water Revenues 8,013,623 8,156,395
Total Water Expenses 7,564,288 8,216,509
Sewer Utility Fund
Total Sewer Revenues 7,953,336 8,252,919
Total Sewer Expenses 7,877,000 8,125,986
Solid Waste Utility Fund
Total Solid Waste Revenues 3,692,190 4,234,350
Total Solid Waste Expenses 3,979,820 4,065,052
Storm Water Utility Fund
Total Storm Water Revenues 3,071,482 3,251,676
Total Storm Water Expenses 4,860,842 3,622,383
Internal Service
Employee Benefits Fund
Total Employee Benefits Revenues 2,827,000 931,656
Total Employee Benefits Expenses 2,876,618 649,153
Uninsured Loss Fund
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 105,000 66,250
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 243,027 244,628
Special Revenue, Select Capital Project Funds,
Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
Enterprise and Internal Service Funds
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Be it further resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the following
sums of money be levied in 2020, collectible in 2021, upon the taxable property in said City of
St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
2021
Tax Capacity Based Levy Final Tax Levy
General Fund 29,601,811$
Debt Service 4,410,814
Capital Replacement Fund 1,312,700
Park Improvement Fund 860,000
Employee Benefits Fund 150,000
Total Tax Levies 36,335,325$
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 20-____
Resolution authorizing the 2021 final HRA levy
Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”),
the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority"); and
Whereas, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
Whereas, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorize s the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
Whereas, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
Whereas, for 2021, the Final HRA Levy amount will be $1,437,180; and
Whereas, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
Whereas, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
Now therefore , be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council: That approval is hereby
given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2021, such tax upon the taxable property of
the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)
Resolution N o. 20-____
Resolution adopting the 2021 - 2030
Capital Improvement P lan (CIP)
Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has received a report
from the chief financial officer related to proposed capital spending for 2021 - 2030; and
Whereas, it is necessary for the City to maintain and replace its capital assets in order to
enhance the City’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
Whereas, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council and
staff exercise over the capital assets of the City;
Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that:
1. The 2021 - 2030 Capital Improvement Plan is hereby adopted.
2. The city manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal
year 2021 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Capital Improvement ProgramCity of St. Louis Park, MNFUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY2021 2030thruTotal2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Source2026 2027 2028 2029 2030BSM250,000250,000Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant362,90052,900 7,000 33,000 270,000Capital Replacement Fund43,632,3333,823,834 3,504,715 4,605,781 4,286,981 4,227,699 4,284,903 5,668,636 5,237,255 3,989,250 4,003,279E-911 Funds712,59931,611 33,191 184,851 116,594 38,423 40,344 42,362 44,480 131,704 49,039G.O. Bonds26,722,6675,014,323 1,104,641 3,319,963 3,743,407 3,455,410 3,118,410 2,056,450 1,437,838 2,028,250 1,443,975G.O. Tax Increment Bonds2,538,2682,538,268Met Council Grant2,538,2542,538,254Municipal State Aid25,135,5408,032,8724,966,500 4,525,0002,213,868 4,317,300 1,080,000Park Improvement Fund13,063,2501,242,500 1,641,750 1,679,500 1,331,000 1,318,000 1,298,000 1,924,500 1,344,000 666,000 618,000Pavement Management Fund44,642,0082,199,160 4,903,578 4,355,700 5,263,020 5,033,850 5,054,800 4,451,300 4,204,900 4,919,300 4,256,400Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund1,635,000380,000360,000 525,000370,000Police & Fire Pension1,243,50055,500 55,500 255,500 369,000 254,500 253,500Police Budget282,00062,000 2,000 62,000 26,000 2,000 62,000 2,000 62,000 2,000PW Operations Budget4,175,000470,000 535,000 285,000 290,000 295,000 1,050,000 305,000 310,000 315,000 320,000Sanitary Sewer Utility10,842,4371,002,250 1,589,775 1,001,779 1,020,962 1,042,674 995,665 961,187 1,057,264 1,085,446 1,085,435Solid Waste Utility140,0008,000 58,000 8,000 13,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 13,000 8,000State of Minnesota2,642,7551,502,755600,000 540,000Stormwater Utility22,075,4571,829,702 1,873,075 3,883,036 2,648,423 2,818,247 1,119,931 1,353,424 2,937,345 2,673,405 938,869Tax Increment - Elmwood3,330,0003,330,000U.S. Government9,931,4549,931,454Unfunded10,890,000240,0009,500,000 250,000260,000 270,000 370,000Water Utility30,549,3052,864,263 2,314,757 2,925,852 3,407,750 3,243,159 3,292,740 3,167,571 3,336,652 3,188,831 2,807,73041,041,392 23,731,236 28,176,46237,336,13721,986,962257,334,727GRAND TOTAL20,948,293 20,200,430 23,063,602 24,239,486 16,610,727Monday, December 14, 20202021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanCity council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 10
Total2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Source2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Report criteria:All Address data All CategoriesAll ContactsAll From Street data All DepartmentsAll Priority LevelsAll ProjectsAll Source TypesAll Street Name data All To Street data Monday, December 14, 20202021-2030 Capital Improvement PlanCity council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2021 budget, final city and HRA property tax levies, and 2021-2030 capital improvement plan (CIP)Page 11
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Action agenda item: 8 b
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36
pertaining to zoning and set second reading for January 4, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Chapter 36 of the city code to adopt the
regulations listed in the ordinance.
Summary: Periodically staff proposes an ordinance to amend various sections of the zoning
code for the purpose of making changes that are more consistent with current policy,
correcting errors and making clarifications. The ordinance relates to changes to the following
items . Each item is explained further in the attached discussion.
Section 1: Create s a process to amend planned unit developments established prior to 2015.
Section 2: Corrects code references.
Section 3: Clarifies when a conditional use permit is required for excavation or grading.
Section 4: Amends and corrects enforcement rules.
Section 5: Allow s temporary outdoor produce sales in the office district.
Section 6: Adds a land use description for marijuana dispensary.
Section 7: Clarifies how the zoning code measures the height of accessory buildings.
Section 8: Adds side yard requirement specific to accessory dwelling units.
Section 9: Allow s restaurants with intoxicating liquor in the C-1 district.
Section 10: Prohibits illuminated signs on certain residential properties.
Section 11: Increases and further de scribes bright accent colors allowed on buildings.
Section 12: Clarifies existing buildings are subject to transparency requirements.
Staff presented the proposed ordinance to the planning commission in study session on
November 4, 2020. The commission provided comments and conducted a public hearing on
December 2, 2020. No comments were received from the public and the planning commission
recommended approval.
A brief summary of each of the proposed amendments is provided in the report.
Financial or budget considerations: None .
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Ordinance
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor
Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
Discussion
The following is a summary of each of the proposed amendments:
1. Section 1 of the proposed ordinance. Creating a process amending planned unit
developments established prior to February 27, 2015. On February 27, 2015, the city
adopted the current PUD ordinance that establishes PUDs by creating a PUD zoning district.
Prior to this, PUDs were established through a permit process similar to a conditional use
permit. These PUDs continue to exist as approved. The draft ordinance proposes to create a
process by which these PUDs can be amended so that the developments and businesses
that operate under the PUDs can adapt and grow under current market conditions.
The ordinance proposes a process for a “major amendment” which requires a public
hearing before the planning commission and action by the city council. A major amendment
includes amendments that increase demand for required parking, decrease yards, increase
floor area ratios, increase ground floor area ratios, increase signage, increase building
height, increase density, require amendments to covenants or agreements required by the
PUD, or changes to the PUD if it is within the FEMA flood hazard area.
It also proposes a process for “minor amendment” which does not require a public hearing
or planning commission review. It goes directly to the city council. A minor amendment
includes any amendment not considered a major amendment or administrative
amendment.
The proposed amendment process is similar to the amendment process used for conditional
use permits and special permits.
2. Section 2 of the proposed ordinance. This section corrects an incorrect code reference and
eliminates correction deadlines t hat expired years ago. Additionally, cities ’ authority to
enforce correction deadlines such as this, often referred to as sunset provisions, was
repealed by the state several years ago. Therefore, this provision is not enforceable and
those uses that do not meet code can continue as legally, non -conforming uses.
3. Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. Requiring a conditional use permit for excavation only
if the work does not already require review through other city permitting processes. This
change will reduce redundancy in review process and application fees. The city reviews
grading for all activities that require permits such as a building permit, CUP or PUD. It is
unnecessary to require a separate permit for this review. A separate permit, however, will
continue to be required for grading or excavation for activity that does not require a
separate permit such as re-grading large open space areas.
4. Section 4 of the proposed ordinance adds PUDs that were approved prior to February 27,
2015 and special permits to the list of permits subject to the enforcement provisions. This
section also corrects an inconsistency between the title and body of the paragraph to clarify
that the permits are revoked after two years of inactivity, not one.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
5. Section 5 of the proposed ordinance adds Office to the list of zoning districts where
temporary outdoor nurseries/farmers markets can operate.
6. Section 6 of the proposed ordinance adds a land use description of marijuana dispensary.
The description clarifies that this use is distinct from other land uses described in the code.
The city does not currently allow marijuana dispensaries in any zoning district. The
amendment better positions the code for future amendments if the city chooses to allow
the use in certain districts or with any conditions, and clarifies the use is not allowed until
the city adopts rules allowing the use .
7. Section 7 of the proposed ordinance clarifies how the city measures the height of accessory
buildings, including ADUs. It also establishes an exemption for dormers allowing them to
occupy up to 50% of a side of a building.
8. Section 8 of the proposed ordinance adds a side yard requirement for ADUs that was
inadvertently deleted from the ordinance that was recently approved. It is consistent with
how the code was presented to the planning commission and city council.
9. Section 9 of the proposed ordinance adds restaurants with intoxicating liquor license as a
CUP in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial district.
10. Section 10 o f the proposed ordinance adds language to prohibit illuminated signs on
residential properties with four or fewer dwelling units.
11. Section 11 of the proposed ordinance increases the maximum percentage of bright accent
colors from five percent to ten percent. It also improves the description of bright accent
colors. It is still somewhat subjective, and applicants may appeal staff’s interpretation to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
12. Section 12 of the proposed ordinance clarifies that existing buildings are subject to the
transparency requirements and they cannot reduce the existing windows to the extent that
the buildings no longer comply with the transparency requirements or reduce their present
level of compliance.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
Ordinance No. ___-20
Ordinance regarding miscellaneous zoning amendments
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the city, from time-to-time, updates and clarifies provisions of the zoning
ordinance, and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 20-29-ZA), and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City
Code:
Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-32 Planned Unit Development (PUD) District of the St.
Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text to the list of land
use descriptions.
(e) Status of planned unit developments established prior to February 27, 2015. Planned
unit developments approved prior to February 27, 2015 are either permitted, permitted with
conditions, conditional uses, or nonconforming uses under the provisions of this chapter. This
section establishes the status of planned unit developments approved under the previous
ordinance based upon the five categories described in this subsection and sets forth procedures
for the termination, and in some cases conversion, of planned unit developments.
(1) Planned unit developments now permitted or permitted with conditions. Planned unit
developments issued for land uses which, under this chapter, are now permitted or
permitted with conditions uses in the zoning district in which the property is located
are hereby continued in full force and effect. The owner of property subject to a
continued planned unit development may request termination of the planned unit
development by providing the city with a letter requesting termination. Upon receipt
of a letter requesting termination, the city shall issue a written termination to the
applicant which shall be recorded on the title to the property by the city. The owner of
the property shall sign an assent form provided by the city wherein the owner agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless the city for any actions or consequences arising from
termination of the planned unit development. Upon termination of the planned unit
development, the land use shall be governed by the regulations of this ordinance, and
other applicable ordinances. Once a planned unit development is declared terminated,
it may not be reinstated.
(2) Planned unit developments now conditional uses. Planned unit developments issued
for land uses which, under this chapter, are now conditional uses in the zoning district
in which the property is located are hereby continued in full force and effect. The
holder of a continued planned unit developments may request the city to verify
compliance of the property with the terms and conditions of the continued planned
unit development. A holder of a planned unit development requesting such verification
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
shall submit such plans and other documentation necessary to demonstrate to the
zoning administrator that the property complies with the terms and conditions of the
continued planned unit development. Upon a satisfactory demonstration of
compliance with the conditions of the continued planned unit development, the zoning
administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning compliance stating that the property
complies with the terms and conditions of the continued planned unit development.
The certificate of zoning compliance shall be recorded on the title of the subject
property by the city.
The holder of a continued planned unit development may request the city to convert
the planned unit development to a conditional use permit under the terms of this
chapter, provided the property meets all conditions and requirements of this
ordinance and other applicable city ordinances. The procedure for converting a
continued planned unit development to a conditional use permit shall be the same as
that procedure required for adoption of a conditional use permit as specified in section
36-33(d).
(3) Planned unit developments now nonconforming uses. A land use which was permitted
by planned unit development and which is now a nonconforming land use in the
district in which it is located, may continue to operate as defined in the planned unit
development. It cannot, however, be expanded or intensified unless rezoned into a
new planned unit development zoning district or the use is otherwise altered to
confirm to current code.
(f) General conditions for continued planned unit development. All land uses subject to a
continued planned unit development are subject to the following general conditions:
(1) Any property covered by a continued planned unit development shall comply with all
provisions of the planned unit development. If it is subsequently determined that a
property is not in compliance with the provisions of the continued planned unit
development, the holder of the continued planned unit development shall take
whatever actions are necessary to bring the property into compliance with the
conditions and provisions set forth in the planned unit development. Failure to bring
the planned unit development into compliance within 12 months of written
notification of noncompliance by the city shall be grounds for termination of the
continued planned unit development. The procedure to be followed in terminating the
planned unit development shall be that specified in subsection 36-38(a)(8). Upon
termination of the continued planned unit development, the use shall be subject to
the provisions of Article VI of this chapter pertaining to nonconformities and all other
applicable provisions of this chapter, including the regulations for the district in which
the use is located.
(2) If the property is damaged or destroyed and the cost to repair such damage or
destruction exceeds 60 percent of the assessor's market value of the structure at the
time of the damage, the property shall be brought into compliance with this chapter.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
(3) Property covered by a continued planned unit development may be expanded, altered
or modified, subject to all of the following:
a. Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater or
complete compliance with other provisions of this chapter to the extent
reasonable and possible, except that greater or complete compliance will not be
required with the following provisions:
1. Lot area.
2. Lot width.
3. Required yards.
4. Building height.
5. Floor area ratio.
6. Ground floor area ratio.
7. Density.
b. The expansion, alteration or modification may be permitted when it is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and shall follow the procedures outlined below:
1. Major Amendment. A major amendment to a continued planned unit
development is required when the proposed changes or modifications will
have an effect on required parking, required yards, floor area ratios, ground
floor area ratios, signage, building height, density, covenants or agreements
required by the continued planned unit development, or changes to the
continued planned unit development issued in the FW, FF or FP districts. A
major amendment shall follow the same process required for an initial CUP
application.
2. Minor Amendment. Any amendment to a continued planned unit
development not considered a major amendment as defined above may be
approved by the City Council. The minor amendment shall follow the same
process as an initial CUP application, except that a public hearing and
planning commission review is not required.
Section 2. Chapter 36, Section 36-37(d) General conditions for continued special permit
uses of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text, add the
following underlined text, and renumber accordingly.
(1) Any property covered by a continued special permit shall comply with all provisions of
the special permit which were in effect on December 31, 1992. If it is subsequently
determined that a property is not in compliance with the provisions of the continued
special permit, the holder of the continued special permit shall take whatever actions
are necessary to bring the property into compliance with the conditions and provisions
set forth in the special permit. Failure to bring the special permit into compliance within
12 months of written notification of noncompliance by the city shall be grounds for
termination of the continued special permit. The procedure to be followed in
terminating the special permit shall be that specified in subsection 36-33(b)(5)38(a)(8).
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
Upon termination of the continued special permit, the use shall be subject to the
provisions of Article VI of this chapter pertaining to nonconformities section 36-401 and
all other applicable provisions of this chapter, including the regulations for the district in
which the use is located.
(2) The property shall comply with all provisions of this chapter which require compliance
with certain provisions by a certain date, including the dates listed in subsection 36-
362(i)(7), subsection 36-36(k), subsections 36-406(f) and (h).
Section 3. Chapter 36, Section 36-79 Grading; filling and land reclamation; excavation and
mining, of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text.
(c) Permit not required. A conditional use permit for filling, land reclamation, mining or
excavation is not required when the activity has been reviewed and approved in conjunction
with construction or activity approved under a building permit, conditional use permit or
planned unit development.
Section 4. Chapter 36, Section 36-38(a) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
enforcement is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text and add the following
underlined text.
(8) Abandonment, revocation and cancellation of permit or variance. If the zoning
administrator determines that any holder of an existing planned unit development
approved before February 27, 2015, a special permit, variance, or conditional use
permit has violated any of the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to
approval of the permit or variance , or has violated any other applicable laws,
ordinances, or enforceable regulation, the planned unit development, special permit,
variance or conditional use permit granted by the city may be revoked and canceled by
the following process:
a. The zoning administrator shall notify the holder in writing of the violation. The
notice shall be given in person or by United States Postal Service addressed to
the address of the applicant stated on the original application. Notice shall also
be served upon the occupant of the premises for which the planned unit
development, special permit, conditional use permit or variance was issued or, if
no occupant can be found, notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place upon
such premises. Notice shall be effective on the date of mailing, personal service
or posting.
b. The notice shall state that after the expiration of ten days from the date of the
notice, the planned unit development, special permit, conditional use permit or
variance is terminated without further action or proceeding.
(9) New construction required within two years. All variances and conditional use permits
shall be revoked and canceled after onetwo years has elapsed from the date of the
adoption of the resolution granting the variance or conditional use permit if a new
structure or alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
conditional use permit or variance and the holder has failed to complete the work
within that year, unless a valid building permit authorizing such work has been issued
and work is progressing in an orderly way.
Section 5. Chapter 36, Section 36-82(b)(7)b. of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
temporary uses is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough te xt and add the following
underlined text.
b. The temporary use shall be located in the C-1 district, C-2 district, O district, M-X
district, PUD district, in a public park or closed right-of-way as approved by the
city.
Section 6. Chapter 36, Section 36-141(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to land
use descriptions is hereby amended to add the underlined text as follows and renumber
accordingly.
(19) Marijuana dispensary means a dispensary location where patients or consumers can
access cannabis in a legal and safe manner. Users get assistance from experts (bud tenders)
who find an optimal dosage and recommend the de livery method to achieve optimal results
when using medical cannabis.
Section 7. Chapter 36, Section 36-162(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
accessory structures is hereby amended to add the following underlined text.
(3) Height.
a. Accessory buildings – Shall not exceed 15 feet in height. The maximum height may be
increased to 24 feet where the primary exterior materials of the accessory building
match the primary exterior materials of the principal building and the roof pitch
matches a roof pitch of the principal building, and provided the wall height shall not
exceed 9 feet from the building ground floor to the highest top plate of the exterior
non-gable end walls . Dormers are exempt from the height measurement if the
combined width of the dormers is less than 50% of the side of the building they are
located on.
Section 8. Chapter 36, Section 36-162(e)(7) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
accessory dwelling units is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text, add the following
underlined text and renumber accordingly.
7. Accessory dwelling units that are detached from the principal residential structure
shall comply with the regulations for accessory structures in Division 4 Residential
District Regulations, and must comply with the following additional requirements:
a. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be located a minimum of 15 feet
from any rear lot line unless the rear lot line is adjacent to an alley, in
which case it may be located five (5) feet from the rear lot line.
b. Detached accessory dwelling units located less than six (6) feet from the
principal dwelling is subject to the same side yard as required for the
principal dwelling. Detached accessory dwelling units located six (6) feet or
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
more from the principal dwelling shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet
from any side property line.
c. Detached accessory dwelling units shall have a minimum of 200 square feet
of floor area.
d. Balconies and decks above the ground floor shall not face an interior side
yard or a rear yard not abutting an alley. Rooftop decks for an accessory
dwelling unit shall not be allowed.
Section 9. Chapter 36, Section 36-193(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to the
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District is hereby amended to add the underlined text as
follows.
(10) Restaurants with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows:
a. 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.
b. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 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.
c. Separate pedestrianways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of
pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot.
d. 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.
Section 10. Chapter 36, Section 36-362 of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to sign
regulations is hereby amended to add the following underlined text:
(12) Illuminated signs at residential properties with four or fewer dwelling units.
Section 11. Chapter 36, Section 36-366(b)(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
architectural design is hereby amended to delete the strikethrough text and add the following
underlined text:
d. No building may display more than five ten percent of any elevation surface in
bright, high -intensity or pure tone accent primary or secondary colors. No
fluorescent or neon colors shall be used on any exterior elevation surface.
Section 12. Chapter 36, Section 36-366(b)(8) of the St. Louis Park City Code pertaining to
architectural design is hereby amended to add the following underlined text:
(8) Ground floor transparency. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all
ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1, C -2, and MX Districts, and retail, service, and
restaurant uses in O and BP Districts:
a. Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window
and door area.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to miscellaneous zoning code amendments
b. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet.
Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet.
c. Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the
exterior of the building.
d. No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored,
spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting
and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly
transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor
and a re flectance factor of not greater than 0.25.
e. Buildings, and additions to existing buildings, shall maintain a minimum of 50 percent
ground floor transparency on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor
street facing facades. Buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building
by more than 50 percent shall bring the entire building into compliance with these
transparency requirements.
f. The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique
situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street
safety including but not limited to public art and pedestrian scale amenities may be
considered and may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the development
application requires approval by city council, in which case the city council shall
approve the alternate transparency plan.
Section 13. This ordinance shall take effect January 29, 2021.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 4, 2021
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 December 21, 2020
Second Reading January 4, 2021
Date of Publication January 14, 2021
Date Ordinance takes effect January 29, 2021
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: December 21, 2020
Action agenda item : 8c
Executive summary
Title: 2021 non-union em ployee compensation
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution confirming a 2% general increase for non-
union employees effective 1/1/21 and approving the city manager’s salary for 2021.
Policy consideration: Does city council wish to confirm the recommended 2021 employee
compensation as outlined in this report?
Summary: This report details staff’s recommendation for setting non-union employee
compensation for 2021.
Recommendation for 2021 non-union employee compensation:
•Approve 2% standard adjustment to compensation plan for non-union employees, allowing
for regular progression through pay ranges.
•Adjust pay range for city manager and allow movement through the range consistent with
non-union. Set formula in compliance with salary cap.
Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2021
budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: 2021 non-union employee compensation
Discussion
Background:
Non-union employee compensation – 2% general increase e ffective 1/1/21
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997 and revised in 2017, allows the city
manager to approve the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data,
the CPI, and the general financial condition of the city. Our positions are reviewed on a regular
basis and compared to the market, which includes metro area cities (suburbs) with populations
over 25,000 but less than 90,000, as required by our compensation plan approved by city
council. As a reminder, our non-union compensation plan was updated in 2017 to reflect target
pay at the 85th percentile of the market based on above average employee performance.
Saado Abboud, principal consultant with Keystone Compensation Group, has reviewed our pay
plan and made a recommendation for 2021 pay increases. Mr. Abboud has recommended that
pay maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive in 2021 if increased by 2%.
Employee performance and pay
The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our compensation
plan. In our plan, a non-probationary employee (probation is typically six months) with above
average performance receives up to double the standard increase to progress through the pay
range until they reach the pay line (maximum). Positions at the maximum, employees on
probation, and employees who do not have above average performance will receive the
standard adjustment of 2%. Employees with unsatisfactory performance do not receive an
annual increase in pay. Directors are responsible for making recommendations to the city
manager on employee performance. The city manager makes final determination on employee
pay increases based on performance.
City manager salary
The contract for the city manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when salaries
are established for other non-union employees. Compensation must comply with the state
mandated salary cap. Below is the current approved city manager compensation:
• 2020 salary range set for the city manager at $183,520 - $229,400.
• Salary cap for 2020 with SLP waiver is $184,506.
• 2020 city manager annual salary is $184,506 annually ($88.028/hour for 2,096 work hours
in 2020) for the city manager, not including car allowance, in accordance with the salary
cap. Car allowance of $600 per month is subject to the PTO program. In addition, city
council approve d 510 hours of PTO for the city manager in 2020 (510 x $88.028 = $44,894).
How does the state salary cap work?
State law limits the amount of compensation political subdivisions may pay employees. Under
current law, the maximum pay is 110% of the governor’s salary. Adjustments are made annually
based on the Consumer Price Index. Effective January 1, 2021, the salary cap limit is $180,927.
The City of St. Louis Park requested and received a waiver from the salary cap in 2002, allowing
us to pay in excess of the cap up to a new limit.
Items that are excluded from compensation and not subject to the cap are employee benefits
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: 2021 non-union employee compensation
that are also provided to all other full-time employees, vacation/sick leave allowances, health/
dental/disability/life insurance, pension benefits, dues paid to civic or professional organizations,
reimbursement for expenses, and relocation expenses during initial year of employment.
How is the city manager’s pay range set?
In 2017, Keystone Compen sation Group and Principal Consultant Saado Abboud revised a
regional peer group to survey the base salary for the city manager position and use that
information to establish a market value salary range. All cities are outside of Minnesota since
Minnesota salaries are capped by state statute. The peer group of comparable cities based on
population size and economic group contains 27 cities in seven Midwestern states.
Although the market shows that the city manager’s market (85th percentile target pay) has
increased by 2.83%, due to current economic uncertainties the recommended 2021 salary
range for the city manager would be set consistent with other non-union employees at 2%
above 2020, with the range being $187,190 - $233,988.
What is the recommended 2021 city manager pay?
It is recommended that the pay range for the position of city manager be set as recommended
by the consultant. Because the city manager’s compensation is at the maximum of the 2020
range, the city manager is eligible for the standard increase to the range maximum in
accordance with the compensation plan, consistent with other non-union employees. A 2%
increase to 2020 total compensation of $229,400 would put total compensation at $233,988.
Below is the recommended 2021 city manager compensation:
• 2021 salary range set for the city manager at $187,190 - $233,988 (2% increase).
• Salary cap for 2021 with SLP waiver is $186,720.
• 2021 city manager annual salary is $186,720 annually ($91.172/hour for 2,048 work hours
in 2021) for the city manager, not including car allowance, in accordance with the salary
cap. Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the PTO program. In addition, city
council approves 518.45 hours of PTO for the city manager in 2021 (518.45 x $91.172 =
$47,268).
Paid Time Off (PTO Program)
The Paid Time Off (PTO) Program was approved by city council and part of the city’s personnel
manual. Section 9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees,
including the city manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Sub. 9, shall
receive equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of paid le ave (PTO) is
determined by the city council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically accrued on a per pay period basis,
although the city council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a lump sum amount of time. Paid leave
(PTO) may be used as earned, maintained in a paid le ave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon
separation of employment. Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not part of the flex leave program
(Resolution 02-127). Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a health care
savings plan account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements
(Resolution 05-104). Funds in the health care savings plan can only be used for reimbursement of
eligible medical expenses after separation of employment.
G eneral comment: Copies of the compensation plan are available from the city clerk.
City council meeting of December 21, 2020 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: 2021 non-union employee compensation
Resolution N o. 20-____
Resolution confirming 2021 compensation for non-union employees and
setting the city manager’s salary
Whereas the city council established and approved, by Resolution 17-012, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section V III-C of such
plan directs the city manager to approve the standard adjustment to the plan; and
Whereas the city council wishes to adopt policies for city employees and has conferred
upon the city manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies
and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the city;
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
A. Confirms the city manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 2%,
effective January 1, 2021 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan; and
B. Confirms a salary of $186,720 for the city manager (based on 2,048 hour year), not
including car allowance. Salary application must comply with the salary limitations set
by state statute, therefore PTO applies to the city manager’s car allowance of $600 per
month. City council also approves an additional 518.45 hours of PTO for the city
manager in 2021.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2020
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk